Confused, Help - Moderation or low carb?

24

Replies

  • JayRuby84
    JayRuby84 Posts: 557 Member
    Sounds like you have a good plan. Cutting out food groups is not conducive to long term weight loss.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »

    So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
    Why?

    Low carb diets are unsustainable.

    Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.
    So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?

    Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    You have to find what works for you. The statistics are staggering for people keeping the weight off once they have achieved their goal, no matter how they lose. Eating at a deficit is how weight is lost. Exercise will help you become healthier, but weight loss is mostly about eating less calories than you burn. For me, I experimented, but ultimately found that calorie counting, moderation, and portion control worked best for me, and is helping me to sustain my weight loss. I do limit (as much as possible) processed foods, but eliminating processed foods is pretty much the biggest change in my eating habits. Portion size and moderation is extremely important and I will have to monitor myself for the rest of my life. It is just the way it is for me, as I will never let myself go back to being morbidly obese.
  • I did low carb a couple of years ago to drop pregnancy weight. I did Atkins induction for 4 months (20g or less) and lost 40 lbs. I also worked out 2 hours a day, 6 days a week. I had about 1-2 binge days a month. I maintained my weight loss for two years by just counting calories. I feel both are decent in losing weight and if you are just looking for a quick fix low carb may be for you because of the usual, rapid, initial weight loss, even if it is mostly water weight. I personally find it unsustainable for a lifetime change since I do not have health problems, like diabetes, that I need to be concerned about at this point. I have also found that a good percentage of low carb people gain their weight back plus more, but calorie counting people do too. I gained 11 lbs due to a broken piece of my c5 and not moving as I should have for the amount that I ate. I still watch carbs but I aim for between 100-150g a day. I'm an advocate of doing whatever works best for you. If you can do low carb and it agrees with your body go for it, if counting calories work better for you go with that.
  • jrose1982
    jrose1982 Posts: 366 Member
    rabbyduby wrote: »
    Ok, so I am so confused as to what to do. I have been reading a lot on weightloss. Whiles I have found low carb gives you quicker weightloss and good for diabetics, I find it so hard to stick to a low carb diet such as atkins or say around 20grams of carbs a day as a lifestyle. so my question is can I eat regular things but try to watch my carbs and still loose weight or do I have to choose one low carb or calorie counting?

    In general, low carb diets work by being low calorie diets in disguise, because my foods that are high in carbohydrates are also calorie-dense relative to their overall nutrition profile (pastries and desserts, for example), or are used as vehicles for calorie and fat-dense foods (like a loaded baked potato or buttered rolls). As a secondary effect, low carb diets tend to show rapid 'progress' that is, for most people, merely water weight, which gives a big immediate result and then tapers off after a couple of weeks of low carb.

    None of the above is intended to indicate that a low carb diet won't work, just that it works by giving some folks an easy (for them) way of watching their calories by virtue of the food choices they make.

    Very well said. There's also a matter of carb sensitivity, which varies by person but I'm not even gonna try to explain because I'll just butcher it (I'm not even sure I'm calling it the right thing). What I will tell you is that low-carb diets don't work for everyone. The litmus test I used when deciding to try a low-carb diet was a measure of how satisfied I am after eating carbs. I realized that despite eating a lot of calories, I was usually hungry again a couple hours later. That suggests that my body was not effectively switching from burning carbs to burning fat. By lowering my carb intake, that's not the case anymore.

    I also feel I should tell you that my weight loss on a low-carb diet has been 1-2 lbs per week - the same as on a low-calorie diet. The quick weight loss people experience early on is just water weight. The benefit of this diet is that I find it more sustainable for me.

    I personally found that 20 grams a day is too restrictive, but 50 grams a day is quite doable. But I didn't just start at 50 grams a day, I started at 75 and worked my way down.
    I've also seen articles that suggest anything less than 100 g/day will provide some help with weight loss. The same articles suggest that most people shouldn't be eating more than 150 g/day (I don't know where this information came from). That 150 g/day cap compares nicely to the 140 g/day that is often recommended for diabetics. I think for diabetics that number is intended - not for weight loss - but to prevent dangerous blood glucose spikes. But it follows logically that most people probably don't need more than 140-150 g/day. (but then I don't know where either number comes from)

    If you want to do a low-carb diet, I suggest you start at 100 g/day and work your way down to a comfortable level. You can also start at 20 and work your way up. A "comfortable level" being that point at which you can eat at your recommended calorie level, be satisfied with what you're eating, and not feel hungry all the time. I can't promise this will work, but it's sure easier than 20 g/day.

    Important: When restricting your carbs (whether 150 or 20, it doesn't matter) make sure you eat lots of vegetables, appropriate levels of protein (figure out a healthy range, not just a minimum), and plenty of fat (whatever's left of your calorie budget after figuring your carbs and protein). Do not eat all your carbs from bread. If your limit's high enough you can include some, but you have to eat fruit and vegetables (mostly vegetables).
  • MaxPower0102
    MaxPower0102 Posts: 2,654 Member
    I am having great success on 80g of carbs a day. We have a MD on staff here, and in his private practice he has had incredible success using this as the benchmark. By reading nutrition labels or entering food into MFP, I budget my carbs for the day. I find that the foods that are the most detrimental to my weight loss plan happen to also be the highest in carbs.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    High carb, low carb, keto...it all requires moderation as you will need a deficit to lose weight regardless of the plan you go for. So to answer the OP, it's not an either/or. Low Carb will require moderation as well.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Everything in moderation. Change your lifestyle. You will see results.

    This^

    Unless you have medical reasons to go low carb, it's not necessary. Permanent changes are what will help you keep the weight you lose off. A temporary low carb diet.....but then what's the plan for maintenance?

    The "speed" of weight loss for low carb is water weight. Your muscles will wring out glycogen stores for energy. The water weight loss is temporary, if you go back to regular carb eating habits.
  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 7,018 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    High carb, low carb, keto...it all requires moderation as you will need a deficit to lose weight regardless of the plan you go for. So to answer the OP, it's not an either/or. Low Carb will require moderation as well.

    ^This.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    baconslave wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    High carb, low carb, keto...it all requires moderation as you will need a deficit to lose weight regardless of the plan you go for. So to answer the OP, it's not an either/or. Low Carb will require moderation as well.

    ^This.
    I'd like a definition of "moderation". It's kinda squishy like "clean". :wink:
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    edited November 2014
    baconslave wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    High carb, low carb, keto...it all requires moderation as you will need a deficit to lose weight regardless of the plan you go for. So to answer the OP, it's not an either/or. Low Carb will require moderation as well.

    ^This.
    I'd like a definition of "moderation". It's kinda squishy like "clean". :wink:

    Just like "clean", it varies for everyone.

  • baconslave
    baconslave Posts: 7,018 Member
    baconslave wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    High carb, low carb, keto...it all requires moderation as you will need a deficit to lose weight regardless of the plan you go for. So to answer the OP, it's not an either/or. Low Carb will require moderation as well.

    ^This.
    I'd like a definition of "moderation". It's kinda squishy like "clean". :wink:

    laugh-c107160f171147f3c214bb30e43c803f.gif
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited November 2014
    baconslave wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    High carb, low carb, keto...it all requires moderation as you will need a deficit to lose weight regardless of the plan you go for. So to answer the OP, it's not an either/or. Low Carb will require moderation as well.

    ^This.
    I'd like a definition of "moderation". It's kinda squishy like "clean". :wink:

    Okay. "Not excessive." As with "healthy"--another subjective thing--it varies depending on one's overall goals. IMO, if you eat something to the extent that you fail to get adequate nutrition overall or gain weight or your diet fails to further other goals of yours, you are not eating moderately.

    Unlike "clean" it does not mean that people who eat foods you don't are dirty or unclean or eat dirty or unclean food, and thus it is not rude in the same way.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    baconslave wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    High carb, low carb, keto...it all requires moderation as you will need a deficit to lose weight regardless of the plan you go for. So to answer the OP, it's not an either/or. Low Carb will require moderation as well.

    ^This.
    I'd like a definition of "moderation". It's kinda squishy like "clean". :wink:

    Okay. "Not excessive." As with "healthy"--another subjective thing--it varies depending on one's overall goals. IMO, if you eat something to the extent that you fail to get adequate nutrition overall or gain weight or your diet fails to further other goals of yours, you are not eating moderately.

    Unlike "clean" it does not mean that people who eat foods you don't are dirty or unclean or eat dirty or unclean food, and thus it is not rude in the same way.
    Clean isn't rude. It's interpreted by some as rude.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    edited November 2014
    Hornsby wrote: »
    baconslave wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    High carb, low carb, keto...it all requires moderation as you will need a deficit to lose weight regardless of the plan you go for. So to answer the OP, it's not an either/or. Low Carb will require moderation as well.

    ^This.
    I'd like a definition of "moderation". It's kinda squishy like "clean". :wink:

    Just like "clean", it varies for everyone.
    it sure does.
    A lot of our daily evocations here are equally vague.
  • DLo07
    DLo07 Posts: 2 Member
    edited November 2014
    I Recommend reading "Grain Brain" and other books that explain the benefits of high fat low carb diets (LCHF). High healthy fats that is. Not omega 6's. I eat HFLC which is NOT Atkins. Baking with low carb flours like almond and coconut flour makes adapting to that lifestyle seamless.

    I also eat a ton of nutrient dense green leafy vegetables. They are generally high in fiber and low in net carbs. The bulkiness of the fiber makes me feel full and the healthy fats keeps me satisfied for much longer.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    MelRC117 wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »

    So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
    Why?

    Low carb diets are unsustainable. They are a quick fix... not recommended by any medical expert. So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?

    Hmmmm...seems to me you don't really know what you are talking about. I think it's best to stop with the blanket statements on low carb diets.


    Yeah... and those doctors and dieticians that I heard this from must not know what they are talking about also. Perhaps then it's just best to trust the mildly patronising MFP user....
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »

    So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
    Why?

    Low carb diets are unsustainable.

    Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.
    So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?

    Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.

    They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,208 Member
    eldamiano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »

    So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
    Why?

    Low carb diets are unsustainable.

    Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.
    So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?

    Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.

    They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
    ....everyone, stop restricting your carbs, now, it's bad, the Dr. said so. lol

  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    For me, moderation means, paying attention to, and actually only eating, the correct recommended serving size, and not overindulging in any food, or beverage. But, it certainly is open to interpretation.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    eldamiano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »

    So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
    Why?

    Low carb diets are unsustainable.

    Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.
    So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?

    Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.

    They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
    ....everyone, stop restricting your carbs, now, it's bad, the Dr. said so. lol

    "You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.

    In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.

    Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets

    "An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"

    Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
    ----

    So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »

    So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
    Why?

    Low carb diets are unsustainable.

    Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.
    So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?

    Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.

    They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
    ....everyone, stop restricting your carbs, now, it's bad, the Dr. said so. lol

    "You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.

    In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.

    Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets

    "An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"

    Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
    ----

    So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?

    a blind reference to an "earlier study" does not convince me. It sounds like that study assumed low carbers do not eat any plant derived chemicals. That simply is not the case.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,208 Member
    edited November 2014
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »

    So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
    Why?

    Low carb diets are unsustainable.

    Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.
    So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?

    Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.

    They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
    ....everyone, stop restricting your carbs, now, it's bad, the Dr. said so. lol

    "You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.

    In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.

    Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets

    "An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"

    Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
    ----

    So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?
    Ok, thanks for the spanking, you sure convinced me. Maybe take a look at the nutritional profiles of various vegetables before continuing with misinformation and generally talking through your hat. I have a feeling it won't matter though.

  • elpmapua
    elpmapua Posts: 15 Member
    keto diets require 30g daily, but since anything less than 100g per day is keto, I give myself elbow room until 50g or sometimes up to 70 g. But most of the time, I try to be below 30 g.

    Thing is, the lower your carbs, the faster you get to keto.
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    elpmapua wrote: »
    keto diets require 30g daily, but since anything less than 100g per day is keto, I give myself elbow room until 50g or sometimes up to 70 g. But most of the time, I try to be below 30 g.

    Thing is, the lower your carbs, the faster you get to keto.

    I don't think I would remain in ketosis if I get near 100. 100 is low carb but not usually low enough for keto
  • DawnieB1977
    DawnieB1977 Posts: 4,248 Member
    I'm losing baby weight at the moment (my youngest is 6 months) and I did carb cycling for 8 weeks, so 5 low carb and 2 high carb days a week. I didn't go really low with the carbs, I was having between 35 and 70g on low carb days. Now I've stopped for a bit as I found I was getting more tired, and struggling when I had to wake for my baby in the night, especially as I workout a lot, and have 2 other young kids to run round after. I need energy! I also found I was missing fruit.

    I'm just cutting down the amount of starchy carbs I have. I tend to stick to one slice of wholemeal bread a day with breakfast, and I don't eat potatoes/pasta/rice with my evening meal.

    I'm contemplating doing the carb cycling again, but just for 4 weeks. I lost 10lbs in the 8 weeks I did it for.
  • angelique_redhead
    angelique_redhead Posts: 782 Member
    I'm diabetic. I do best on a diet that's mostly meats and veggies with most of my carbs coming from the veggies. I also eat milk products, eggs, avocados. No potatoes (sweet or regular) do NOT count as veggies in my diet though I do occasionally eat part of one and count the carbs in it. Sweet potatoes have some good nutrition in them. I just have to eat 3 ounces or less per day if I have them. I also try not to go over 1480 calories since I'm 56, 5'4", and not overly active. MY doctor recommends a low carb diet so there ARE health professionals that do recommend the low carb lifestyle.
  • eldamiano
    eldamiano Posts: 2,667 Member
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »

    So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
    Why?

    Low carb diets are unsustainable.

    Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.
    So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?

    Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.

    They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
    ....everyone, stop restricting your carbs, now, it's bad, the Dr. said so. lol

    "You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.

    In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.

    Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets

    "An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"

    Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
    ----

    So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?
    Ok, thanks for the spanking, you sure convinced me. Maybe take a look at the nutritional profiles of various vegetables before continuing with misinformation and generally talking through your hat. I have a feeling it won't matter though.

    "generally talking through your hat"

    Did you just completely ignore the fact that these are quotes from the professsionals, and not myself for your own self-purpose?
  • mamadon
    mamadon Posts: 1,422 Member
    Do which ever way works best for you. It all comes down to a calorie deficit. Whether you do the deficit by counting calories(moderation) or low carb, just do whichever you think you can do for the long haul.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,208 Member
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »
    eldamiano wrote: »

    So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
    Why?

    Low carb diets are unsustainable.

    Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.
    So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?

    Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.

    They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
    ....everyone, stop restricting your carbs, now, it's bad, the Dr. said so. lol

    "You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.

    In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.

    Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets

    "An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"

    Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
    ----

    So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?
    Ok, thanks for the spanking, you sure convinced me. Maybe take a look at the nutritional profiles of various vegetables before continuing with misinformation and generally talking through your hat. I have a feeling it won't matter though.

    "generally talking through your hat"

    Did you just completely ignore the fact that these are quotes from the professsionals, and not myself for your own self-purpose?
    No I understand where the quotes came from, but unlike yourself I can think for myself and generally rely on multiple sources to ensure I'm not just repeating someones biased dictorial opinion......you know, like yours for example. Why not try to find contrary information.....it keeps things balanced, but somehow I don't believe that's your cup of tea. Carry on, it really doesn't matter.

This discussion has been closed.