A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Replies
-
It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories.
So out of curiosity, just to ask this question...if you don't track your calories and you change your diet and you lose weight how do you know that it wasn't because you established a caloric deficit given that...you know...you don't know how many calories you were eating.
Is someone saying that there was weight loss without a deficit?
The point is (as you so kindly quoted) that it is easier to arrive at said deficit when eating less carbs.
Are individuals here being willfully obtuse?
Don't others on this forum often say to eat foods high in fat and protein to help with satiety? Are they incorrect also?
I'm also not sure what your point is Aaron? Hell, you can lose weight without counting calories as long as you're below maintenance. Obviously its easier to know this if you count.
And I'm not sure how else to explain it.
Ask a friend to read it to you.
Oh, and I'm not "Aaron," so perhaps you're trying to digest this all too quickly?
She was quoting you because she was agreeing with you and directing it towards me because your post was also directed towards me. No reason to be snarky towards her she was just inviting me to respond to you.0 -
It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories.
So out of curiosity, just to ask this question...if you don't track your calories and you change your diet and you lose weight how do you know that it wasn't because you established a caloric deficit given that...you know...you don't know how many calories you were eating.
Is someone saying that there was weight loss without a deficit?
The point is (as you so kindly quoted) that it is easier to arrive at said deficit when eating less carbs.
Are individuals here being willfully obtuse?
Don't others on this forum often say to eat foods high in fat and protein to help with satiety? Are they incorrect also?
Some people find that high fat/high protein foods increase satiety. Others do not.
Some find that low carb diets create performance issues. Others do not.
Your mileage may vary.
The bottom line is that a calorie deficit creates weight loss. How you get to that calorie deficit depends on your needs, goals and preferences. Arguing that some magical formula is "better" is fine if that's how you want to spend your time.
I'll be over here figuring out what works for me, because it seems like the magic diet formula mostly talks to minute differences whereas focusing my energy on ensuring I get sufficient activity into my week seems to have a lot more of an impact on my health.0 -
At one point, it worked for me. However, the weight is very easy to gain back.
It may not work for everyone, every BODY is different.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
My question was directly related to the line where you say we are wasting time burning sugar. My question is, how much time am i wasting? What would the average rate of fat loss be in the 2 diets that would convince me that I'm wasting time doing high carb cuts?
The lacks basic nutrition knowledge was directed at prettykitty15, not you.
lindsey1979 mentioned that in her post:Well, according to the study, the low carbers did lose more fat than the low-fat folks.
The low carbers lost 2.6% of their fat mass whereas the low fat folks only lost 0.4% of their fat mass. So, the low carbers lost more weight overall and more fat.
And I will quote Mr. Knight......
So basically if I was doing low carb instead of high carb the progress that I made from a period of September to August could have actually been done in 2 to 3 months instead of 11?Calorie intake was self-reported. Error bars are around +/- 400 calories/day.
The study is useless.
if you're asking me to diagnose YOU, i can't do that. i don't know you. if you're asking me "can it be done?", that i can answer... yes, i've seen it happen in myself when i was younger, and in others who were dieting at the same time i was: one following the same low-carb regimen i was doing, another doing a low-fat, low-calorie pre-planned meal diet.
we also can't dismiss the self-reporting out of hand. just because you're self-reporting doesn't mean people were just guessing at how many calories they ate. that 400 calorie error bar could have been as simple as the 20-25% variance that's been shown to happen in nutritional labels, or by using a restaurant website to determine calories eaten. every one of us self-reports on MFP. if we aren't going to be vigilant about it, then we all know we're not going to get anywhere.0 -
The bottom line is that a calorie deficit creates weight loss. How you get to that calorie deficit depends on your needs, goals and preferences. Arguing that some magical formula is "better" is fine if that's how you want to spend your time.
QFT and stated better and more simply than I managed. Yes, this is the point. Calorie deficit is the reason for weight loss and so if you want to make a general statement that applies to everyone about weight loss as advice all you can really say is "establish a calorie deficit". If you instead say "avoid this type of food, then do this type of exercise" you are instead applying what has worked for you personally and expecting (wrongly) that that is the approach that will be best for everyone. At that point you are ignoring the cause of weight loss (calorie deficit) and instead advising based on your own personal route to it. If you just teach people about caloric deficit then they can find their own way.0 -
Weight loss is not simply math, it’s deeper than that. If someone told you, “you can only eat 3 snicker bars a day for 6 months or 250g of protein”(they are both roughly the same amount of calories). Most people would be very hungry on the 3 snicker bars a day compared to the 250g of protein. Once again, there is a reason there is an obesity problem in America. It would be extremely hard to stick to the snicker bars diet due to the inclination to eat. Which will make it least likely for someone to produce “weight loss” but it’s just simply math right? it’s not, there is more to it than that.It sure does. A calorie is a calorie regardless if it comes from carrots or cookies, protein, fat or carbs. Weight loss is simple math, calories in versus calories out.
It is simple math when you know what a Snickers bar is in calories(195 approx) So less then 600 calories with the Snickers or 1,000 calories from Protein? I choose. . . . .both! Obesity in America has more to do with abundance of food options, central air conditioning, and people choosing to sit instead of move. Would you like to try again?0 -
It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories.
So out of curiosity, just to ask this question...if you don't track your calories and you change your diet and you lose weight how do you know that it wasn't because you established a caloric deficit given that...you know...you don't know how many calories you were eating.
Is someone saying that there was weight loss without a deficit?
The point is (as you so kindly quoted) that it is easier to arrive at said deficit when eating less carbs.
Are individuals here being willfully obtuse?
Don't others on this forum often say to eat foods high in fat and protein to help with satiety? Are they incorrect also?
The point is that "cutting carbs" is not the reason for the weight loss, the caloric deficit is. It is just that "cutting carbs" in a world filled with high-calorie, low-nutrient carb rich foods often lands you on a caloric deficit. The point is if you focus on "cutting carbs" you are not focusing on the actual effector of your weight loss which is not nearly as effective as paying attention to the actual cause. You want the best results while still being able to eat what you enjoy, then look at the calories. You want to avoid counting calories then sure, avoid carbs like the plague...but there is no reason to act superior or like this is somehow dismantling the idea of establishing a caloric deficit and that carbs aren't a bad thing.
By analogy its like giving someone instructions on how to swim safely in the ocean and their response being to move inland so they are no where near an ocean, declare themselves safe from drowning and then act smug about it. Well, okay...that is a solution sure but its sort of causing yourself more trouble than its worth just to ignore the actual problem.
Well, that's sort of silly. If reducing carbs makes it easier for some people to maintain a deficit, then it certain is important. Simply because it's the indirect cause rather than the direct cause doesn't diminish its usefulness in the weight loss strategy debate.0 -
You want to show studies that show progress on people with insulin resistance to prove that low carb is more efficient for everyone. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.
I knew it was coming with your presence but already we're going to start talking about insulin resistant people, pcos, etc as if everyone has the same issue?
Like always you got nothing!For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.
What you're asking doesn't make sense. Extrapolating into absurdity and then declaring victory because the absurdity doesn't exist is the height of foolishness and ignorance. Well, maybe not the height, but definitely up there.
How about this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Different macros (low carb versus high carb) on women with different insulin sensitivity resulted in different weight loss. The insulin sensitive women lost more on the higher carb diet whereas the insulin resistant women lost more on the low carb high fat diet. Protein intakes were the same in both groups and they were isocaloric deficits.
Of course not, but pretending that something like insulin resistance isn't incredibly COMMON (over 40% of US adults have it at prediabetic or diabetic levels -- the vast majority of which are wholly unaware of it). is a disservice. And since insulin resistance makes is more difficult to lose weight and easier to put weight on, it makes sense that an even higher percentage of obese and overweight individuals have insulin resistance. And, guess what, lowering carbs helps those people lose weight more effectively. Pretty much in line with the study originally cited. Shocking...
And another thing, I am in no way trying to make believe insulin resistance doesn't exist. I just won't sit here and have a debate about a topic then as always you pop up with the same arguments about diabetics, this disease, that disease. You want to use those diseases in all your arguments. And why would I deny diabetic issues when my mother, father, stepfather are all diabetic. So spare me your ideas that I might be ignorant to the whole problem.
I know very well that you have been spoken to about your interaction on this site with me as I have been with you. Honestly I'm not even sure why we still see each others posts as that was supposed to have been blocked. But whatever. I'm not going to ha e the same old debate with you that ends down the same path.
No. I'm not saying that. In fact, I've never said that low carb is better for everyone. Please don't make up things I never said.
I'm saying that it is better for SOME people. For some people, it is a more effective strategy. In the original study cited in this thread, it apparently was more effective for obese people across racial spectrums as a general rule. I suspect in part is due to potential insulin resistance playing a role. Also probably due to the highly satiating nature of high fat, low carb diets -- makes it easier for many to produce a caloric deficit.
And if you don't want the debate, then simply stop replying. It's a self-solving problem.0 -
The bottom line is that a calorie deficit creates weight loss. How you get to that calorie deficit depends on your needs, goals and preferences. Arguing that some magical formula is "better" is fine if that's how you want to spend your time.
QFT and stated better and more simply than I managed. Yes, this is the point. Calorie deficit is the reason for weight loss and so if you want to make a general statement that applies to everyone about weight loss as advice all you can really say is "establish a calorie deficit". If you instead say "avoid this type of food, then do this type of exercise" you are instead applying what has worked for you personally and expecting (wrongly) that that is the approach that will be best for everyone. At that point you are ignoring the cause of weight loss (calorie deficit) and instead advising based on your own personal route to it. If you just teach people about caloric deficit then they can find their own way.
And, if you want an example clearly demonstrating the absurdity of applying what worked for an individual to a group, take a look at this thread:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1422564-want-to-maintain-the-muscle-size-but-drop-the-bodyfat0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Honestly, I've lost weight using carb-heavy foods and lost weight being in total ketosis for over a month. I did NOT notice a difference in the rate of weight loss between the two diets and the low carb diet made me have very low energy. I think the low-carb thing is for people who just don't want to exercise. Cutting my calories, no matter what the food, has always worked the same for me. That being said, low carb foods do keep you much fuller. It's just up to you. I thought doing low-carb for a while was just a fun way to change up my diet for a bit so that's how I used it.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Aloha! I can't say that the argument stating you need a deficit is incorrect.... but I will tell you all that I cut carbs to less than 30grams a day and did not track calories at all. I went from 200lbs to 145lbs in 4 months. I hit my goal weight in October 2013 and now sit at a comfortable 150. I always feel energized and have no binge problems or hunger pains the way I did when I weighed 200 and calorie counted. I love living the low carb lifestyle. It works for some and doesn't for others. It was also the hardest thing I ever did. Sugar was an addiction for me. No matter if it was chocolate, fruit or bread... it's all sugar and I had a very hard time giving it up, but it was so worth it.0
-
Aloha! I can't say that the argument stating you need a deficit is incorrect.... but I will tell you all that I cut carbs to less than 30grams a day and did not track calories at all. I went from 200lbs to 145lbs in 4 months. I hit my goal weight in October 2013 and now sit at a comfortable 150. I always feel energized and have no binge problems or hunger pains the way I did when I weighed 200 and calorie counted. I love living the low carb lifestyle. It works for some and doesn't for others. It was also the hardest thing I ever did. Sugar is an addiction no matter if it's chocolate or white bread... it's all sugar.
It's all sugar and it's not an addiction.0 -
The issue is it always turns into a debate with you about the same diseases. Kind of boring.
You want to show studies that show progress on people with insulin resistance to prove that low carb is more efficient for everyone. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.
I knew it was coming with your presence but already we're going to start talking about insulin resistant people, pcos, etc as if everyone has the same issue?
Like always you got nothing!For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.
What you're asking doesn't make sense. Extrapolating into absurdity and then declaring victory because the absurdity doesn't exist is the height of foolishness and ignorance. Well, maybe not the height, but definitely up there.
How about this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Different macros (low carb versus high carb) on women with different insulin sensitivity resulted in different weight loss. The insulin sensitive women lost more on the higher carb diet whereas the insulin resistant women lost more on the low carb high fat diet. Protein intakes were the same in both groups and they were isocaloric deficits.
Of course not, but pretending that something like insulin resistance isn't incredibly COMMON (over 40% of US adults have it at prediabetic or diabetic levels -- the vast majority of which are wholly unaware of it). is a disservice. And since insulin resistance makes is more difficult to lose weight and easier to put weight on, it makes sense that an even higher percentage of obese and overweight individuals have insulin resistance. And, guess what, lowering carbs helps those people lose weight more effectively. Pretty much in line with the study originally cited. Shocking...
And another thing, I am in no way trying to make believe insulin resistance doesn't exist. I just won't sit here and have a debate about a topic then as always you pop up with the same arguments about diabetics, this disease, that disease. You want to use those diseases in all your arguments. And why would I deny diabetic issues when my mother, father, stepfather are all diabetic. So spare me your ideas that I might be ignorant to the whole problem.
I know very well that you have been spoken to about your interaction on this site with me as I have been with you. Honestly I'm not even sure why we still see each others posts as that was supposed to have been blocked. But whatever. I'm not going to ha e the same old debate with you that ends down the same path.
No. I'm not saying that. In fact, I've never said that low carb is better for everyone. Please don't make up things I never said.
I'm saying that it is better for SOME people. For some people, it is a more effective strategy. In the original study cited in this thread, it apparently was more effective for obese people across racial spectrums as a general rule. I suspect in part is due to potential insulin resistance playing a role. Also probably due to the highly satiating nature of high fat, low carb diets -- makes it easier for many to produce a caloric deficit.
And if you don't want the debate, then simply stop replying. It's a self-solving problem.
So Lindsey loves disease models. Try breathing into a paper bag.0 -
Aloha! I can't say that the argument stating you need a deficit is incorrect.... but I will tell you all that I cut carbs to less than 30grams a day and did not track calories at all. I went from 200lbs to 145lbs in 4 months. I hit my goal weight in October 2013 and now sit at a comfortable 150. I always feel energized and have no binge problems or hunger pains the way I did when I weighed 200 and calorie counted. I love living the low carb lifestyle. It works for some and doesn't for others. It was also the hardest thing I ever did. Sugar is an addiction no matter if it's chocolate or white bread... it's all sugar.
Now, anyone who doesn't feel you need to stop at the convenience store every day for a liter-sized fountain drink will be lumped in with your "sugar is an addiction" comments.
Thanks for ending any potential for thoughtful discussion.
(Ah, who am I kidding?)0 -
The issue is it always turns into a debate with you about the same diseases. Kind of boring.You want to show studies that show progress on people with insulin resistance to prove that low carb is more efficient for everyone. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.
And another thing, I am in no way trying to make believe insulin resistance doesn't exist. I just won't sit here and have a debate about a topic then as always you pop up with the same arguments about diabetics, this disease, that disease. You want to use those diseases in all your arguments. And why would I deny diabetic issues when my mother, father, stepfather are all diabetic. So spare me your ideas that I might be ignorant to the whole problem.
I know very well that you have been spoken to about your interaction on this site with me as I have been with you. Honestly I'm not even sure why we still see each others posts as that was supposed to have been blocked. But whatever. I'm not going to ha e the same old debate with you that ends down the same path.
No. I'm not saying that. In fact, I've never said that low carb is better for everyone. Please don't make up things I never said.
I'm saying that it is better for SOME people. For some people, it is a more effective strategy. In the original study cited in this thread, it apparently was more effective for obese people across racial spectrums as a general rule. I suspect in part is due to potential insulin resistance playing a role. Also probably due to the highly satiating nature of high fat, low carb diets -- makes it easier for many to produce a caloric deficit.
And if you don't want the debate, then simply stop replying. It's a self-solving problem.
Well, that's sort of sad that is all you see. For me, it's about biology, and some of it does involve diseases -- those that are particularly important to weight loss and weight maintenance and which are incredibly common. If something affects 40% of the population, I think it is something we should talk about -- especially when it's likely and even higher amount of people that come to this website anyway as it likely affects overweight/obese people even more. We can't all be a 5'5" dude clocking in at a buck 45.0 -
Let me put it this way. If you had to give advice about weight loss in one single sentence and have it apply to the broadest audience possible would that sentence contain the word "carbs"?0
-
The issue is it always turns into a debate with you about the same diseases. Kind of boring.
You want to show studies that show progress on people with insulin resistance to prove that low carb is more efficient for everyone. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.
I knew it was coming with your presence but already we're going to start talking about insulin resistant people, pcos, etc as if everyone has the same issue?
Like always you got nothing!For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.
What you're asking doesn't make sense. Extrapolating into absurdity and then declaring victory because the absurdity doesn't exist is the height of foolishness and ignorance. Well, maybe not the height, but definitely up there.
How about this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Different macros (low carb versus high carb) on women with different insulin sensitivity resulted in different weight loss. The insulin sensitive women lost more on the higher carb diet whereas the insulin resistant women lost more on the low carb high fat diet. Protein intakes were the same in both groups and they were isocaloric deficits.
Of course not, but pretending that something like insulin resistance isn't incredibly COMMON (over 40% of US adults have it at prediabetic or diabetic levels -- the vast majority of which are wholly unaware of it). is a disservice. And since insulin resistance makes is more difficult to lose weight and easier to put weight on, it makes sense that an even higher percentage of obese and overweight individuals have insulin resistance. And, guess what, lowering carbs helps those people lose weight more effectively. Pretty much in line with the study originally cited. Shocking...
And another thing, I am in no way trying to make believe insulin resistance doesn't exist. I just won't sit here and have a debate about a topic then as always you pop up with the same arguments about diabetics, this disease, that disease. You want to use those diseases in all your arguments. And why would I deny diabetic issues when my mother, father, stepfather are all diabetic. So spare me your ideas that I might be ignorant to the whole problem.
I know very well that you have been spoken to about your interaction on this site with me as I have been with you. Honestly I'm not even sure why we still see each others posts as that was supposed to have been blocked. But whatever. I'm not going to ha e the same old debate with you that ends down the same path.
No. I'm not saying that. In fact, I've never said that low carb is better for everyone. Please don't make up things I never said.
I'm saying that it is better for SOME people. For some people, it is a more effective strategy. In the original study cited in this thread, it apparently was more effective for obese people across racial spectrums as a general rule. I suspect in part is due to potential insulin resistance playing a role. Also probably due to the highly satiating nature of high fat, low carb diets -- makes it easier for many to produce a caloric deficit.
And if you don't want the debate, then simply stop replying. It's a self-solving problem.
Well, that's sort of sad that is all you see. For me, it's about biology, and some of it does involve diseases -- those that are particularly important to weight loss and weight maintenance. We can't all be a 5'5 dude clocking in at a buck 45.
He's only 5'5"?
He sounds a lot bigger.0 -
The issue is it always turns into a debate with you about the same diseases. Kind of boring.
You want to show studies that show progress on people with insulin resistance to prove that low carb is more efficient for everyone. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.
I knew it was coming with your presence but already we're going to start talking about insulin resistant people, pcos, etc as if everyone has the same issue?
Like always you got nothing!For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.
What you're asking doesn't make sense. Extrapolating into absurdity and then declaring victory because the absurdity doesn't exist is the height of foolishness and ignorance. Well, maybe not the height, but definitely up there.
How about this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Different macros (low carb versus high carb) on women with different insulin sensitivity resulted in different weight loss. The insulin sensitive women lost more on the higher carb diet whereas the insulin resistant women lost more on the low carb high fat diet. Protein intakes were the same in both groups and they were isocaloric deficits.
Of course not, but pretending that something like insulin resistance isn't incredibly COMMON (over 40% of US adults have it at prediabetic or diabetic levels -- the vast majority of which are wholly unaware of it). is a disservice. And since insulin resistance makes is more difficult to lose weight and easier to put weight on, it makes sense that an even higher percentage of obese and overweight individuals have insulin resistance. And, guess what, lowering carbs helps those people lose weight more effectively. Pretty much in line with the study originally cited. Shocking...
And another thing, I am in no way trying to make believe insulin resistance doesn't exist. I just won't sit here and have a debate about a topic then as always you pop up with the same arguments about diabetics, this disease, that disease. You want to use those diseases in all your arguments. And why would I deny diabetic issues when my mother, father, stepfather are all diabetic. So spare me your ideas that I might be ignorant to the whole problem.
I know very well that you have been spoken to about your interaction on this site with me as I have been with you. Honestly I'm not even sure why we still see each others posts as that was supposed to have been blocked. But whatever. I'm not going to ha e the same old debate with you that ends down the same path.
No. I'm not saying that. In fact, I've never said that low carb is better for everyone. Please don't make up things I never said.
I'm saying that it is better for SOME people. For some people, it is a more effective strategy. In the original study cited in this thread, it apparently was more effective for obese people across racial spectrums as a general rule. I suspect in part is due to potential insulin resistance playing a role. Also probably due to the highly satiating nature of high fat, low carb diets -- makes it easier for many to produce a caloric deficit.
And if you don't want the debate, then simply stop replying. It's a self-solving problem.
Well, that's sort of sad that is all you see. For me, it's about biology, and some of it does involve diseases -- those that are particularly important to weight loss and weight maintenance. We can't all be a 5'5 dude clocking in at a buck 45.
He's only 5'5"?
He sounds a lot bigger.
So do chihuahuas -- his dog of choice.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Let me put it this way. If you had to give advice about weight loss in one single sentence and have it apply to the broadest audience possible would that sentence contain the word "carbs"?
For the record. Yes. And it would also include protein and fats.0 -
The issue is it always turns into a debate with you about the same diseases. Kind of boring.
You want to show studies that show progress on people with insulin resistance to prove that low carb is more efficient for everyone. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.
I knew it was coming with your presence but already we're going to start talking about insulin resistant people, pcos, etc as if everyone has the same issue?
Like always you got nothing!For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.
What you're asking doesn't make sense. Extrapolating into absurdity and then declaring victory because the absurdity doesn't exist is the height of foolishness and ignorance. Well, maybe not the height, but definitely up there.
How about this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Different macros (low carb versus high carb) on women with different insulin sensitivity resulted in different weight loss. The insulin sensitive women lost more on the higher carb diet whereas the insulin resistant women lost more on the low carb high fat diet. Protein intakes were the same in both groups and they were isocaloric deficits.
Of course not, but pretending that something like insulin resistance isn't incredibly COMMON (over 40% of US adults have it at prediabetic or diabetic levels -- the vast majority of which are wholly unaware of it). is a disservice. And since insulin resistance makes is more difficult to lose weight and easier to put weight on, it makes sense that an even higher percentage of obese and overweight individuals have insulin resistance. And, guess what, lowering carbs helps those people lose weight more effectively. Pretty much in line with the study originally cited. Shocking...
And another thing, I am in no way trying to make believe insulin resistance doesn't exist. I just won't sit here and have a debate about a topic then as always you pop up with the same arguments about diabetics, this disease, that disease. You want to use those diseases in all your arguments. And why would I deny diabetic issues when my mother, father, stepfather are all diabetic. So spare me your ideas that I might be ignorant to the whole problem.
I know very well that you have been spoken to about your interaction on this site with me as I have been with you. Honestly I'm not even sure why we still see each others posts as that was supposed to have been blocked. But whatever. I'm not going to ha e the same old debate with you that ends down the same path.
No. I'm not saying that. In fact, I've never said that low carb is better for everyone. Please don't make up things I never said.
I'm saying that it is better for SOME people. For some people, it is a more effective strategy. In the original study cited in this thread, it apparently was more effective for obese people across racial spectrums as a general rule. I suspect in part is due to potential insulin resistance playing a role. Also probably due to the highly satiating nature of high fat, low carb diets -- makes it easier for many to produce a caloric deficit.
And if you don't want the debate, then simply stop replying. It's a self-solving problem.
Well, that's sort of sad that is all you see. For me, it's about biology, and some of it does involve diseases -- those that are particularly important to weight loss and weight maintenance. We can't all be a 5'5 dude clocking in at a buck 45.
He's only 5'5"?
He sounds a lot bigger.
So do chihuahuas -- his dog of choice.
Because, you know, it's been scientifically proven that GSDs are "better"
You'll post the study later....0 -
Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.
And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.
What are your stats then?
Diseases are important when they impact weight loss -- the very purpose of this site -- and disproportionately so for overweight/obese people. It's about getting the most helpful information out to people. Sometimes a disease that affects over 40% of the population are, and should be, part of that discussion. For having so many people in your family afflicted by those very same diseases, it seems like you'd be more interested in such discussions.0 -
Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.
And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.
What are your stats then?
Diseases are important when they impact weight loss -- the very purpose of this site -- and disproportionately so for overweight/obese people. It's about getting the most helpful information out to people. Sometimes disease that after over 40% of the population are, and should be, part of that discussion. For having so many people in your family afflicted by those very same diseases, it seems like you'd be more interested in such discussions.
People with those diseases would be better off getting info from medical professionals than from "experts" from "Top 10" universities "in the world"0 -
Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.
And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.
What are your stats then?
How is this relevant?0 -
Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.
And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.
What are your stats then?
How is this relevant?
Hush now. Maybe there will be a main forum ban!!!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions