What LCHF is NOT!
deansdad101
Posts: 644 Member
Been thinking a lot about the impending changes and additions to the Group "Announcements" and/or FAQ's/Mission Statement and Frob's statement in his first draft where he said;
" I am hesitant to set any firm line on what is low-carb and what is not."
It's a comment I completely agree with since I too believe it's neither our place, NOR is it even possible, to "set a firm line" or even define exactly, what "LCHF" is.
I began by approaching it from the perspective of listing a bunch of "generally accepted" concepts and guideline "recommendations" but continuously ran up against the roadblock of the wide diversity of those considering the LCHF lifestyle
Not just from a medical but also ethical or any number of other personal choice, considerations.
As a Group, we must take all of those into account and encourage (and assist) all members in finding the "right mix" of the various alternatives of LCHF for EACH of them.
That we can do that is, IMO, perhaps the greatest benefit of LCHF. Yes, I do believe that there are certain "lines" that should not be crossed, and I'm not a big fan of "one from column A and one from B" but that doesn't mean that someone can't be successful either including dairy or not, e.g. There will never be total agreement on those types of things, nor should there be.
Unlike other approaches that insist that there is one "right" way to do it and if you are not meeting with success it MUST BE because you are either not doing it the way "we told you", you are "obviously lying about your cal intake or overstating your exercise cals out", or the famous "or else you are just a glutton or a sloth" - LCHF says "you just need a couple "tweaks" to adjust the program to fit YOUR specific needs", and someone here will be able to help you pin down the needed "tweaks".
We say, unlike those so locked in their dogma, that LCHF (in any one particular form) might NOT be right for YOU and ANY one particular program is definitely NOT "right" for everybody.
So my list of "generally accepted concepts and guidelines" just never really got anywhere.
It finally occurred to me that perhaps a list of what LCHF is NOT might be more productive.
I do believe though that a few "consensus" definitions of terms would be helpful - not so much because it actually "matters" if the upper limit of LC is 150 or 119 (it doesn't) but only so that we can all be "on the same page" when discussing things that are very open to individual interpretation, so let's start with those (and of course any of these can be "adjusted" as the group sees fit since it's all relative anyway).
On Carb Levels, can we agree on the following terms:
Certainly ANY ONE individual can argue that these particular numbers don't apply to their particular circumstance, just as it would be possible to argue the same with ANY specific numbers.
But it's not the specific numbers that matter, it's only that we are discussing things from the same (ANY "same"), frame of reference.
On to what LCHF is NOT:
These are, of course, simply my opinions, suggestions, include my own biases and subject to any modification, alteration, or flat out rejection by any and all as to whether or not they should be incorporated, or referenced in the aforementioned "announcements/faqs" discussion.
Agree or disagree, comment or dismiss, allow to influence your own thinking and opinion - or not.
It is my belief that having that discussion (including ALL points of view) here, in a thread that could be made available to those "checking us out" to see if this is a place that might "fit" for them - would be extremely helpful and beneficial for them.
Rather than a list of what "you must do if you want to play in our sandbox", links to threads like this (with input representing various points of view) would expose them not only to alternative points of view but provide them insight as to how they might wish to proceed or at least with specific questions they would want answered to help them make those decisions.
Frob's off to a great start with what is now posted as the singular "Announcement".
A little further refinement of the current verbiage, followed by a list of "links" to specific threads on topics of relevance would, IMO, be the "perfect" solution.
ONE "announcement" with a continuously growing (and changing) list of links.
For all of the ideas for specific "FAQ's" suggested to date one need only create a post thread with the intent of having it included on the Announcement list.
So, for example, a list of books or videos (or any of the other suggested ideas);
Begin a new thread (which remains "open" and active) with an appropriate and relevant title, like "Video Recommendations FAQ" and indicate in the initial post that it is intended to be included as a FAQ "referenced" thread.
Encourage posters to contribute their favorites, with a link and perhaps a short "review" but stick to the topic and not wander off topic (me/pot/kettle <g>).
Since the thread itself remains active and alive it's available for anyone to add their suggestions to as they come on them and the info is constantly updated and it's a "living document".
If need be the mods could "trim" any superfluous OT ramblings (I think?), or transfer just the video links to a new (closed) thread and then link to that.
Thoughts?
" I am hesitant to set any firm line on what is low-carb and what is not."
It's a comment I completely agree with since I too believe it's neither our place, NOR is it even possible, to "set a firm line" or even define exactly, what "LCHF" is.
I began by approaching it from the perspective of listing a bunch of "generally accepted" concepts and guideline "recommendations" but continuously ran up against the roadblock of the wide diversity of those considering the LCHF lifestyle
Not just from a medical but also ethical or any number of other personal choice, considerations.
As a Group, we must take all of those into account and encourage (and assist) all members in finding the "right mix" of the various alternatives of LCHF for EACH of them.
That we can do that is, IMO, perhaps the greatest benefit of LCHF. Yes, I do believe that there are certain "lines" that should not be crossed, and I'm not a big fan of "one from column A and one from B" but that doesn't mean that someone can't be successful either including dairy or not, e.g. There will never be total agreement on those types of things, nor should there be.
Unlike other approaches that insist that there is one "right" way to do it and if you are not meeting with success it MUST BE because you are either not doing it the way "we told you", you are "obviously lying about your cal intake or overstating your exercise cals out", or the famous "or else you are just a glutton or a sloth" - LCHF says "you just need a couple "tweaks" to adjust the program to fit YOUR specific needs", and someone here will be able to help you pin down the needed "tweaks".
We say, unlike those so locked in their dogma, that LCHF (in any one particular form) might NOT be right for YOU and ANY one particular program is definitely NOT "right" for everybody.
So my list of "generally accepted concepts and guidelines" just never really got anywhere.
It finally occurred to me that perhaps a list of what LCHF is NOT might be more productive.
I do believe though that a few "consensus" definitions of terms would be helpful - not so much because it actually "matters" if the upper limit of LC is 150 or 119 (it doesn't) but only so that we can all be "on the same page" when discussing things that are very open to individual interpretation, so let's start with those (and of course any of these can be "adjusted" as the group sees fit since it's all relative anyway).
On Carb Levels, can we agree on the following terms:
- "Carbs" means TOTAL carbs. Although it's totally acceptable for one to track/count and compute "NET" carbs if that is their wont (and belief) "x" Total Carbs will almost always be a number lower than "x" Net Carbs and when discussing any individual situation it really does matter when someone reports "I've been under 20 carbs/day...." whether those are Total 20 or Net 20 (which might be 60 Total), so we're not arguing the case of which is "right" but rather which it IS.
- 100-150/day we'll call LOWER Carb - a significant reduction from the SAD "HIGH Carb" levels but above the LOW Carb numbers generally considered to be the threshold for LCHF.
- 50-100/day the upper range of LCHF where "most" will either begin to experience some (if not all) of the benefits of LCHF, OR where those who have successfully navigated the waters of a Very Low Carb/Hight Fat (VLCHF) and become Fat Adapted (FA) "may" be able to maintain both target weight and an FA state.
- 20-50/day the range in which "most" will likely produce a measurable level of ketone bodies high enough to either induce the "switch" to fat burning or to be able to maintain a FA state (after it has been established). It might also be the range in which, if maintained for a long enough period of time, "some" ("many"?) will, in fact become FA.
- 20/day or fewer, the range which "most" will require for a period of time ranging from, at least, 3-6 weeks (typically), to enter Nutritional Ketosis (NK) or become Fat Adapted (FA).
- NK or FA is defined as a "measured" blood B-OHB level of 0.5-3.0mmols and cannot be accurately defined by urine or breath testing (at least at the current state of technology) methods. While it is entirely possible for a person to actually BE FA or in NK without measuring B-OHB levels, it simply is not possible for them to know "for sure" that they are or are not using any of the various "subjective" indicators and as such effectively evaluate if changes to current macro ratios or levels might be indicated.
Certainly ANY ONE individual can argue that these particular numbers don't apply to their particular circumstance, just as it would be possible to argue the same with ANY specific numbers.
But it's not the specific numbers that matter, it's only that we are discussing things from the same (ANY "same"), frame of reference.
On to what LCHF is NOT:
- LCHF is NOT - Atkins, Paleo, South Beach, Primal, or any of a 100 other "specific" diets - BUT, ANY of those CAN BE LCHF. Point being, there is NO ONE "right" way to do LCHF except the one "right" for YOU. It "might" be any of those, or something in between - it just "depends" (on what is "right" for YOU)
- LCHF is NOT -low carb + high protein. There are well documented metabolic and physiological reasons why higher protein levels in combination with reduced dietary fat levels are not just counter productive but can be medically dangerous and it would be irresponsible for us, as a group to suggest otherwise. Low Carb + High Fat + MODERATE Protein is the proper balance.
- LCHF is NOT likely to be successful WITHOUT simultaneous (and significant) reductions in sugar (in all its forms), grains, starches, and refined/processed foodstuffs, both because it's not possible to reduce total carbs sufficiently while continuing to consume them and because they are the major contributors to insulin level "spikes" which trigger the metabolic chain effects.
- LCHF is NOT a "lose weight QUICK" diet plan. A properly designed and complied with LCHF diet WILL produce weight loss results, in addition to the many other positive benefits but weight loss is a secondary (although important) consideration, a "side benefit", NOT the be all and end all (for "most").
- LCHF is NOT (necessarily) "ketosis" - although it "might" lead one to a level of ketosis wherein one achieves and maintains ketone bodies in the blood sufficient to achieve FA/NK. It is, however, entirely possible to achieve many of the benefits of LCHF at carb intake levels above those required for FA/NK but that is still MUCH BETTER (for overall health and wellness) than those levels mandated by the SAD diet.
- LCHF is NOT a "miracle cure" for obesity, insulin resistance, T2(or1)DM, heart or CA disease, epilepsy, cancer, alzheimers, ADHD, or any of a number of other maladies frequently mentioned - but it HAS been clinically demonstrated that it CAN have very positive effects on MANY of them in numerous observational and clinical studies and individual instances.
- LCHF is NOT "appropriate", "right", or even advisable for EVERYONE. A significant (but continuously decreasing) portion of the population has absolutely no problem dealing with levels of daily carb intake that could quite literally kill those with elevated levels of insulin resistance (many of the seriously underweight, e.g.). Their numbers, as a percentage of the population are, however, declining and we simply do not know how lifelong levels of excessive carb intake "might" affect even those not currently at or near the onset of IR.
- LCHF is NOT primarily dependent on CICO or "net" calories and does not consider that "a calorie is a calorie" or that exercise, per se, is either a "requirement for weight loss" or an excuse to "eat back" exercise cals. This is NOT to say that total cal intake doesn't matter, or that exercise isn't beneficial for other health and wellness reasons - just that it is not a "required" component of LCHF.
These are, of course, simply my opinions, suggestions, include my own biases and subject to any modification, alteration, or flat out rejection by any and all as to whether or not they should be incorporated, or referenced in the aforementioned "announcements/faqs" discussion.
Agree or disagree, comment or dismiss, allow to influence your own thinking and opinion - or not.
It is my belief that having that discussion (including ALL points of view) here, in a thread that could be made available to those "checking us out" to see if this is a place that might "fit" for them - would be extremely helpful and beneficial for them.
Rather than a list of what "you must do if you want to play in our sandbox", links to threads like this (with input representing various points of view) would expose them not only to alternative points of view but provide them insight as to how they might wish to proceed or at least with specific questions they would want answered to help them make those decisions.
Frob's off to a great start with what is now posted as the singular "Announcement".
A little further refinement of the current verbiage, followed by a list of "links" to specific threads on topics of relevance would, IMO, be the "perfect" solution.
ONE "announcement" with a continuously growing (and changing) list of links.
For all of the ideas for specific "FAQ's" suggested to date one need only create a post thread with the intent of having it included on the Announcement list.
So, for example, a list of books or videos (or any of the other suggested ideas);
Begin a new thread (which remains "open" and active) with an appropriate and relevant title, like "Video Recommendations FAQ" and indicate in the initial post that it is intended to be included as a FAQ "referenced" thread.
Encourage posters to contribute their favorites, with a link and perhaps a short "review" but stick to the topic and not wander off topic (me/pot/kettle <g>).
Since the thread itself remains active and alive it's available for anyone to add their suggestions to as they come on them and the info is constantly updated and it's a "living document".
If need be the mods could "trim" any superfluous OT ramblings (I think?), or transfer just the video links to a new (closed) thread and then link to that.
Thoughts?
9
Replies
-
Having a "LCHF is NOT" list strikes me as doing exactly what you said you didn't want to do. After all, a lot of people who do LCHF do it solely as a means to reduce calories.
That said, I'm of the opinion that trying to define goals or whatever of a collective while trying to include every last individual person is an exercise in masochism, futility, and madness. There are simply way too many variables and individual interpretations and executions for such an endeavor to produce meaningful results (I see it happen in the Paleo circles, too -- so many critics take any flexibility mentioned to the absurd extreme and illustrate that such things make it meaningless; they do it to absurdity to berate it, but their point is valid here - if we dilute it too much, we lose its meaning entirely).
I like your "LCHF is NOT" list, but I think we could do a sort of "definitions"/glossary/"LCHF IS" type thing, too, with a proper introduction.
Perhaps something like:LCHF is a loose umbrella term for a diverse set of ways of eating. As such, everyone's implementation details will be slightly different, but here are the generally-accepted definitions for various terms used in this group, and the guidelines we generally agree are a good place to start. These guidelines are by no means set in stone laws, and we encourage you to tweak your own diet so that it works best for you.
[Insert various definitions and generally accepted limits, recommendations, and whatnot here. If you want, I can dig up my general starting recommendations, which equates to something like:]
Carbs -- set your carbs to a realistic goal for you. I generally recommend a 100g ceiling for beginners. Set your sugar to 30-40g. Try not to exceed either of them. This level generally provides enough challenge for beginners coming off SAD, but is still easily attainable once you learn to center your meals around something that isn't pasta or bread.
Protein -- set your protein to .5-1g per pound of lean body weight, or about 100g, and try to get around it (it's okay if you're a little over or a little under). This is generally a good starting point for most people, as you can get pretty close with 3-4oz of a protein source per meal, which is reasonable for most people without trying to artificially inflate or deflate the amount.
Fat -- fill the rest in with fat. [Insert stuff about how it looks like a scary number at first, but fats really are your friend, here.]
[Insert types of food recommendations here. Talk about getting the bulk of your carbs from non-starchy vegetables and learning to base meals around proteins and vegetables instead of starches and carbs, and for cooking everything in a fat.]
This type of guideline provides (in my opinion) enough flexibility to cover most executions of LCHF, while still providing clear definitions and guidelines.2 -
I posted the link to a blog post I wrote in October, I think, along this vein in another thread yesterday, but I guess it got missed. You can c&p whatever you like from it and toss the rest. It was never meant to be exhaustive, but a kind of introduction for the curious or clueless.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/baconslave/view/low-carb-what-s-the-deal-699770
Or not use any of it at all. Whatever.
I think it's better to say 150g and under and then people can choose the cat-skinning-method of their preference, with a general guide at the outset such as Dragonwolf supplied. (Though I do appreciate the well-thought out and precise definitions of Dean'sDad.) I think there are a lot of people who have cobbled their own plan together, but there are also going to be those who are more comfortable with following a formal "PLAN" until they've done it long enough to personalize. A KISS approach though will help reach the greatest number of people in the beginning who might become too overwhelmed with the complicated, IMO. Detailed specifics can be addressed with plan-specific links and/or more in-depth summaries, or from people answering threads. We aren't going to be able to cover everything in the world with an FAQ, that's why we have forums for people to ask individual, and often personalized, questions. But it can and should be a diving-off point that can steer the curious in the right direction.
I wonder if I could use "specific" one more time? LOL!
I hope some of that made sense. The kids are crazy today. And maybe I am a little on the insane side, too.2 -
deadsdad101 being new to the LCHF mindset I actually found defining some word usage helpful.
I really do not care what terms get used but I want us to be using the same language so to speak. Thanks to everyone for your input.
It is critical to my health I now understand at my age of 63 to toss weight loss out as a primary goal and see it as a positive side effect of LCHF lifestyle. Actually pain management is and will remain my main objective for learning and practicing a healthy eating lifestyle. I know the weight loss will happen and it will require I account for what I eat.1 -
BS & GH;baconslave wrote: »I posted the link to a blog post I wrote in October, I think, along this vein in another thread yesterday, but I guess it got missed. You can c&p whatever you like from it and toss the rest. It was never meant to be exhaustive, but a kind of introduction for the curious or clueless.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/baconslave/view/low-carb-what-s-the-deal-699770
<snipped>
I hope some of that made sense. The kids are crazy today. And maybe I am a little on the insane side, too.
No BS, it didn't get "missed" at all and I think it's a valuable contribution to the effort and absolutely "should" be included as a part of the overall "effort".
I don't think it requires much (if any) "editing" at all although anything that any of us propose can always be improved upon and there's no reason that any of it (yours, mine, or anyone else's) has to remain "cast in stone" - we can always go back and "edit" in response to member comments or newly uncovered "evidence" that may bring any of our current "beliefs" or "suggestions" in to question in the future.
As to the "specifics" <g> of both your and Gale's points, I don't disagree with any of them and thank you both for your contributions.
Re the 150 vs 100 "number", I agree that 150 is a good "starting point" and whether it's called the "threshold of LCHF" or the top end of the "LowER Carb" range matters not (to me) - only that we adopt a "standard terminology" where we can and for the purposes that Gale mentioned.
About the only point where I see it becoming an "issue" would be someone who comes in at a current level of 300 (or more) asking for a hard "number" at which to set their initial "target". For some, my recommendation might be 150 for others maybe 100 (depending on where they are starting from and what one can glean from their initial post as to their intentions and the preconceived notion "baggage" they carry re LCHF in general).
To me, it's much more important that the question evokes a discussion on things like the necessity to reduce sugars (e.g.) than it is whether 150 is "LC" or 100 is or is not LCHF. It's the beginning of a process (for those that elect NOT to go "cold turkey" directly to something like 50 or 20), and important that the distinction be made between advice like "just start drinking 10 of these protein shakes today and all will be right with the world by tomorrow" and the more reasonable, (and more likely to be successful), "LCHF is a process that takes some time but gives the body a chance to become acclimated to the changes that will occur".
The one point we may disagree on (or perhaps are not each understanding in the same way) is that I think BOTH (and many other) "versions" (yours and mine here) should be available (via direct links to individual threads) for new group members to consider and factor in to their decision making process.
"Available" doesn't mean (to me) "required reading" but rather "additional" reading one can access as their level of interest and desire for expanding their knowledge base grows.
If we were to adopt such a philosophy I think the selection of individual thread "titles" (what the new user would see for each individual link in the "Announcement") is extremely important.
Things like "Suggested Videos" or "Recommended Books" (or websites, or whatever), are easy and yours is a good example of another - clear, concise, exactly to the point.
Looking at it (or any of those above), someone visiting the group for the first time will (hopefully) select those of particular interest first and down the road revisit the list when they have questions another specific thread title would appear to be relevant.
So too, would it be relatively easy for "old timers" to access an individual "list" of things like videos, websites, etc, they would like to refer to directly in a response to a particular individual's questions or concerns.
If it works, it would function (IMO) as a constantly evolving database of information which while including various points of view, would engender a more consistent range of responses but at the same time offer alternative solutions (especially where a thread includes "discussion" by members holding different points of view.)
1 -
deansdad101 wrote: »
BS & GH;baconslave wrote: »I posted the link to a blog post I wrote in October, I think, along this vein in another thread yesterday, but I guess it got missed. You can c&p whatever you like from it and toss the rest. It was never meant to be exhaustive, but a kind of introduction for the curious or clueless.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/baconslave/view/low-carb-what-s-the-deal-699770
<snipped>
I hope some of that made sense. The kids are crazy today. And maybe I am a little on the insane side, too.
No BS, it didn't get "missed" at all and I think it's a valuable contribution to the effort and absolutely "should" be included as a part of the overall "effort".
I don't think it requires much (if any) "editing" at all although anything that any of us propose can always be improved upon and there's no reason that any of it (yours, mine, or anyone else's) has to remain "cast in stone" - we can always go back and "edit" in response to member comments or newly uncovered "evidence" that may bring any of our current "beliefs" or "suggestions" in to question in the future.
As to the "specifics" <g> of both your and Gale's points, I don't disagree with any of them and thank you both for your contributions.
Re the 150 vs 100 "number", I agree that 150 is a good "starting point" and whether it's called the "threshold of LCHF" or the top end of the "LowER Carb" range matters not (to me) - only that we adopt a "standard terminology" where we can and for the purposes that Gale mentioned.
About the only point where I see it becoming an "issue" would be someone who comes in at a current level of 300 (or more) asking for a hard "number" at which to set their initial "target". For some, my recommendation might be 150 for others maybe 100 (depending on where they are starting from and what one can glean from their initial post as to their intentions and the preconceived notion "baggage" they carry re LCHF in general).
To me, it's much more important that the question evokes a discussion on things like the necessity to reduce sugars (e.g.) than it is whether 150 is "LC" or 100 is or is not LCHF. It's the beginning of a process (for those that elect NOT to go "cold turkey" directly to something like 50 or 20), and important that the distinction be made between advice like "just start drinking 10 of these protein shakes today and all will be right with the world by tomorrow" and the more reasonable, (and more likely to be successful), "LCHF is a process that takes some time but gives the body a chance to become acclimated to the changes that will occur".
The one point we may disagree on (or perhaps are not each understanding in the same way) is that I think BOTH (and many other) "versions" (yours and mine here) should be available (via direct links to individual threads) for new group members to consider and factor in to their decision making process.
"Available" doesn't mean (to me) "required reading" but rather "additional" reading one can access as their level of interest and desire for expanding their knowledge base grows.
If we were to adopt such a philosophy I think the selection of individual thread "titles" (what the new user would see for each individual link in the "Announcement") is extremely important.
Things like "Suggested Videos" or "Recommended Books" (or websites, or whatever), are easy and yours is a good example of another - clear, concise, exactly to the point.
Looking at it (or any of those above), someone visiting the group for the first time will (hopefully) select those of particular interest first and down the road revisit the list when they have questions another specific thread title would appear to be relevant.
So too, would it be relatively easy for "old timers" to access an individual "list" of things like videos, websites, etc, they would like to refer to directly in a response to a particular individual's questions or concerns.
If it works, it would function (IMO) as a constantly evolving database of information which while including various points of view, would engender a more consistent range of responses but at the same time offer alternative solutions (especially where a thread includes "discussion" by members holding different points of view.)
I don't think we necessarily disagree, but maybe we are just looking at things from different angles. I wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't have lots of varying information available. I just see a lot of people who are complete beginners feeling overwhelmed (there is so much info out there and so many different ways to do things) and think that we should keep that at the back of our minds and endeavor to minimize that as best we can, while still providing the depth of information that those at different levels are seeking. If that is at all possible. To me, as much detail in information as possible is ideal, but some people can only handle things in bites. I envision, and have seen similar reactions, to people going into low-carbing and they get inside and realize they just walked into Carroll's Wonderland. Except the Wonderlandians speak an entirely different language! I was just suggesting we try to see what we can do about that. Some less pithy "in a nutshell" resources centrally-placed in addition to the nitty gritty details others want.
But frankly, regardless of how it turns out, anything we do in here will be miles less confusing than the conflicting bullcrap in the Massive Sewer.
2 -
@Deansdad, you did a very admirable effort in trying to define something that is in nature an umbrella term
But who is this for? If it's for noobs (like me
) who stumbled into the group and is looking for info... a long explanation of what LCHF is or isn't...I'm not sure that is very inviting. Too much precision can scare off people if that is the gateway document they are met with...
When I'm noob at something I always look for posts that are concise, has a summary nature and give me an overview of what I'm getting into, if I wanna research more.
Although I like FAQ's, they can easily be boggled down when the mother theme is complex. I suggest rather more how-to guide-like. For example:
If you go from SAD or high carb diet and want to cut down on carbs use methods:
a) cold turkey or
b) gradual adjusting and lowering 30 carbs each week. (or something like that)
...in combination of substituting simple carbs with complex ones or subbing with other products like miracle noodles, ezekiel bread etc.
If your goal is to achieve NK, do this ...bla-bla-bla.
If you need to do ultra low 20g...do this..bla-bla-bla.
If you want to do low carb, but have athletic goals to consider as well...go here bla-bla-bla.
Looking at the desperation in some of the sugar posts in general forum, it seems to me that they want a "how to". Just my two cents.
I've been reading some on reddit lately. It amazes me how much more polite that place is compared to general in MFP. But maybe it's because all the subreddits really narrow it down to more common interests, I don't know. And the up/down voting naturally float the "most useful" posts to the top of the thread, rather than having to skim through endless posts of insults and what not that some threads in MFP is full of.
I'm sure that there are plenty of people who have much more experience than me combining LCHF with athletic performance. If you need an opinion on how to do it that worked for me, I'm happy to share.0 -
I think you have made quite a good list, and succeeded admirably at navigating some tricky waters fraught with potential and subtle misinterpretation
I would however change the below from "LCHF is NOT primarily dependent on CICO" to "LCHF is NOT primarily dependent on *counting* CICO". Small change I know, but just think some could read into your original paragraph that CICO don't matter, which I don't think is your point, but rather that counting calories is not a hard requirement with LCHFdeansdad101 wrote: »- LCHF is NOT primarily dependent on CICO or "net" calories and does not consider that "a calorie is a calorie" or that exercise, per se, is either a "requirement for weight loss" or an excuse to "eat back" exercise cals. This is NOT to say that total cal intake doesn't matter, or that exercise isn't beneficial for other health and wellness reasons - just that it is not a "required" component of LCHF.
0 -
Oh, by the way, you may be aware of this already, but there is some great low carb info on the site authoritynutrition (http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carbohydrate-diets/) that may save you from recreating the wheel. I know I found a lot of useful low-carb info gathered in one place there when I was starting out on low carb 0
-
Also, this page - http://www.youmeworks.com/whylowcarb.html I found a great all in one piece on answering that basic question 'why low carb?' 0
-
BS;baconslave wrote: »deansdad101 wrote: »
BS & GH;baconslave wrote: »I posted the link to a blog post I wrote in October, I think, along this vein in another thread yesterday, but I guess it got missed. You can c&p whatever you like from it and toss the rest. It was never meant to be exhaustive, but a kind of introduction for the curious or clueless.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/baconslave/view/low-carb-what-s-the-deal-699770
<snipped>
I hope some of that made sense. The kids are crazy today. And maybe I am a little on the insane side, too.
No BS, it didn't get "missed" at all and I think it's a valuable contribution to the effort and absolutely "should" be included as a part of the overall "effort".
I don't think it requires much (if any) "editing" at all although anything that any of us propose can always be improved upon and there's no reason that any of it (yours, mine, or anyone else's) has to remain "cast in stone" - we can always go back and "edit" in response to member comments or newly uncovered "evidence" that may bring any of our current "beliefs" or "suggestions" in to question in the future.
As to the "specifics" <g> of both your and Gale's points, I don't disagree with any of them and thank you both for your contributions.
Re the 150 vs 100 "number", I agree that 150 is a good "starting point" and whether it's called the "threshold of LCHF" or the top end of the "LowER Carb" range matters not (to me) - only that we adopt a "standard terminology" where we can and for the purposes that Gale mentioned.
About the only point where I see it becoming an "issue" would be someone who comes in at a current level of 300 (or more) asking for a hard "number" at which to set their initial "target". For some, my recommendation might be 150 for others maybe 100 (depending on where they are starting from and what one can glean from their initial post as to their intentions and the preconceived notion "baggage" they carry re LCHF in general).
To me, it's much more important that the question evokes a discussion on things like the necessity to reduce sugars (e.g.) than it is whether 150 is "LC" or 100 is or is not LCHF. It's the beginning of a process (for those that elect NOT to go "cold turkey" directly to something like 50 or 20), and important that the distinction be made between advice like "just start drinking 10 of these protein shakes today and all will be right with the world by tomorrow" and the more reasonable, (and more likely to be successful), "LCHF is a process that takes some time but gives the body a chance to become acclimated to the changes that will occur".
The one point we may disagree on (or perhaps are not each understanding in the same way) is that I think BOTH (and many other) "versions" (yours and mine here) should be available (via direct links to individual threads) for new group members to consider and factor in to their decision making process.
"Available" doesn't mean (to me) "required reading" but rather "additional" reading one can access as their level of interest and desire for expanding their knowledge base grows.
If we were to adopt such a philosophy I think the selection of individual thread "titles" (what the new user would see for each individual link in the "Announcement") is extremely important.
Things like "Suggested Videos" or "Recommended Books" (or websites, or whatever), are easy and yours is a good example of another - clear, concise, exactly to the point.
Looking at it (or any of those above), someone visiting the group for the first time will (hopefully) select those of particular interest first and down the road revisit the list when they have questions another specific thread title would appear to be relevant.
So too, would it be relatively easy for "old timers" to access an individual "list" of things like videos, websites, etc, they would like to refer to directly in a response to a particular individual's questions or concerns.
If it works, it would function (IMO) as a constantly evolving database of information which while including various points of view, would engender a more consistent range of responses but at the same time offer alternative solutions (especially where a thread includes "discussion" by members holding different points of view.)
I don't think we necessarily disagree, but maybe we are just looking at things from different angles. I wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't have lots of varying information available. I just see a lot of people who are complete beginners feeling overwhelmed (there is so much info out there and so many different ways to do things) and think that we should keep that at the back of our minds and endeavor to minimize that as best we can, while still providing the depth of information that those at different levels are seeking. If that is at all possible. To me, as much detail in information as possible is ideal, but some people can only handle things in bites. I envision, and have seen similar reactions, to people going into low-carbing and they get inside and realize they just walked into Carroll's Wonderland. Except the Wonderlandians speak an entirely different language! I was just suggesting we try to see what we can do about that. Some less pithy "in a nutshell" resources centrally-placed in addition to the nitty gritty details others want.
But frankly, regardless of how it turns out, anything we do in here will be miles less confusing than the conflicting bullcrap in the Massive Sewer.
In the order you made the points:- "Maybe just looking...." - Totally agree
- "Some people can only handle...." - Agree to a degree but will address in subsequent reply
- "suggesting we try to...." - Again, agree and think that we (and the others contributing to this thread) are doing exactly that which is exactly how it "should" work. We can (and should) each bring our individual perspectives to the table, discuss them, and hopefully "fine tune" them with the benefit of each other's input. That's exactly WHY this group "works" as well as it does and why I'm proud to be a part of it.
- "Some less pithy (hey - I resemble that remark <g>), "in a nutshell".... - Agree on the "pithy" part but also don't see it as an "either/or" question - that's why I believe that having BOTH (the "nutshell" and the "pithy" more detailed, less "spoon fed" or "dumbed down" available is a GOOD thing. Meets the needs of both types - those initially looking for just the quick and dirty "nuts and bolts" AND those who have assimilated the simple but are now looking for something more than just the "basics". In a "perfect" world, I'd envision a newbie going first to the "basics" post (so as not be overwhelmed by the jargon) and then at some point after, coming back to the linked threads to gain a better understanding of the "whys" - some of which simply can't be reduced to simple black or white bullet points.
- "frankly, regardless of how it turns out...." - I'm pretty sure it goes without saying that you'll get no argument or disagreement from me on that point <s>
0 -
Foam;Foamroller wrote: »@Deansdad, you did a very admirable effort in trying to define something that is in nature an umbrella term
But who is this for? If it's for noobs (like me) who stumbled into the group and is looking for info... a long explanation of what LCHF is or isn't...I'm not sure that is very inviting. Too much precision can scare off people if that is the gateway document they are met with...
When I'm noob at something I always look for posts that are concise, has a summary nature and give me an overview of what I'm getting into, if I wanna research more.
Although I like FAQ's, they can easily be boggled down when the mother theme is complex. I suggest rather more how-to guide-like. For example:
If you go from SAD or high carb diet and want to cut down on carbs use methods:
a) cold turkey or
b) gradual adjusting and lowering 30 carbs each week. (or something like that)
...in combination of substituting simple carbs with complex ones or subbing with other products like miracle noodles, ezekiel bread etc.
If your goal is to achieve NK, do this ...bla-bla-bla.
If you need to do ultra low 20g...do this..bla-bla-bla.
If you want to do low carb, but have athletic goals to consider as well...go here bla-bla-bla.
Looking at the desperation in some of the sugar posts in general forum, it seems to me that they want a "how to". Just my two cents.
I've been reading some on reddit lately. It amazes me how much more polite that place is compared to general in MFP. But maybe it's because all the subreddits really narrow it down to more common interests, I don't know. And the up/down voting naturally float the "most useful" posts to the top of the thread, rather than having to skim through endless posts of insults and what not that some threads in MFP is full of.
I'm sure that there are plenty of people who have much more experience than me combining LCHF with athletic performance. If you need an opinion on how to do it that worked for me, I'm happy to share.
First, thanks for your input and for the compliment -it's appreciated.
To your points:- "Who is this for...." - I'm looking at it (and perhaps my perspective isn't correct or is too broad) as being "for", first the "noobs", then the "not so noob newbies", and then ALL the rest of us. When I try to consider myself being where I was as a totally "clueless" noob, I would first want a "nuts and bolts/black and white" list of the basics (as I assume and agree with your point that most probably, do). Then I'd at least have something on which to base semi-informed questions that the answers to which would further my understanding. At some point on my learning curve I would want, very much, expose myself to "alternative" interpretations of some of the nuances and they reasons why they exist so I could see for myself and decide which of those might work best for me. Having both easily accessible is, to my mind, the best of both worlds.
- "I'm not sure...." - I wish I could disagree with you that, in the real world, what you are saying about it not being "inviting..." or perhaps that it might not "turn off" some portion of the "new" audience, but my "gut" tells me you are correct. I truly don't "want" to believe it but in this world of twitters, tweaks, and 140 character character "discussions" I'm pretty confident that what I "wish" isn't likely to carry the day and that your assumption is likely the more valid.
- "Looking at the desperation...." - Couldn't agree more and I too agree that a short and sweet, N&B's "how-to" is exactly "what they are looking for AND that for those types of things for which a short and sweet set of guidelines "can" be offered, I agree that we should - but once again I fall back to the belief (hope?) that we can do BOTH with a well thought out, complete, and continuously updated list of links to both current and "closed" threads.
- "..been reading on reddit...." - I'll confess that my only exposure to reddit is the reddit group here on MFP and while I'm guessing that is not the reddit to which you are referring (but there are only so many hours in day and most of mine are accounted for). BUT, I do "git" your point about the "swamp" and some of the litterbox "baggage" that new visitors bring to their first encounter with LCD. Unfortunately, there is little we can do about that, EXCEPT to continue doing what we've been doing and demonstrate to them by our actions that in this group, at least, it IS possible to agree to disagree and express opinions outside the "gospel" without coming under attack.
- "...the up/down voting..." - Here again we are in total agreement. I too would (in some ways) love to see an up/down or thumbs up "liking" system implemented here but that's totally beyond our control AND such a system is not without its downsides. If the "up/down voting" devolves into confirmation of "group speak" or a personality contest, it might very well outweigh any positive benefits. I do think though that by "linking" specific threads to the general "Announcement" post, much of that problem can be resolved. If a linked thread gets out of hand and no longer serves the intended purpose, it's a simple matter to "un-link" it thereby returning it to the status of any other thread in the list of "current" threads. It's not "banished" by a wave of a mods sword, still available for additional comment should any member feel the need to do so, but would likely die a quiet death and slip down the ladder of currently relevant group posts.
- On the "athletic performance & LCHF" issue - I'd suggest that rather than having that discussion here, it would be a perfect example of an "ideal, dedicated thread" candidate for inclusion on the "Announcements" post (should we decide to pursue that path). I completely agree that it is a topic that would be of interest to many - both newbies AND long timers and it certainly is a topic on which there are divergent points of view which would benefit from a thread length discussion. Your "take" on what is "best" approach, mine, or any of the other members who take an interest in the topic, not only "matter" but might very well influence each of us to consider an approach somewhat different than that we currently believe - increasing one's exposure to both knowledge and opinion that differs from our own can only be a GOOD thing (even if we come away still maintaining our original opinion). I'd encourage you to initiate such a thread - regardless of whether it eventually becomes a "faq linked" topic, or not.
1 -
iLos;iloseityes wrote: »I think you have made quite a good list, and succeeded admirably at navigating some tricky waters fraught with potential and subtle misinterpretation
I would however change the below from "LCHF is NOT primarily dependent on CICO" to "LCHF is NOT primarily dependent on *counting* CICO". Small change I know, but just think some could read into your original paragraph that CICO don't matter, which I don't think is your point, but rather that counting calories is not a hard requirement with LCHF
Thanks for the kind words and for the contributions;
To your points:- "I would change..." - Agree. "Perception" matters and many times it's the "small changes" that can have a "big" effect.
- "...authority nutrition...." - I am familiar with the site and would suggest that the site itself (and possibly a specific reference to the page you referenced) should be included in the links.
- "...youme works..." - I wasn't familiar with site (thanks for linking it). Like the a-n site, I'd be more comfortable with linking to it than "hijacking" their work and representing it as our own (not saying that is what you are suggesting), and I will take a look at it.
0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Having a "LCHF is NOT" list strikes me as doing exactly what you said you didn't want to do. After all, a lot of people who do LCHF do it solely as a means to reduce calories.
That said, I'm of the opinion that trying to define goals or whatever of a collective while trying to include every last individual person is an exercise in masochism, futility, and madness. There are simply way too many variables and individual interpretations and executions for such an endeavor to produce meaningful results (I see it happen in the Paleo circles, too -- so many critics take any flexibility mentioned to the absurd extreme and illustrate that such things make it meaningless; they do it to absurdity to berate it, but their point is valid here - if we dilute it too much, we lose its meaning entirely).
I like your "LCHF is NOT" list, but I think we could do a sort of "definitions"/glossary/"LCHF IS" type thing, too, with a proper introduction.
Perhaps something like:LCHF is a loose umbrella term for a diverse set of ways of eating. As such, everyone's implementation details will be slightly different, but here are the generally-accepted definitions for various terms used in this group, and the guidelines we generally agree are a good place to start. These guidelines are by no means set in stone laws, and we encourage you to tweak your own diet so that it works best for you.
[Insert various definitions and generally accepted limits, recommendations, and whatnot here. If you want, I can dig up my general starting recommendations, which equates to something like:]
Carbs -- set your carbs to a realistic goal for you. I generally recommend a 100g ceiling for beginners. Set your sugar to 30-40g. Try not to exceed either of them. This level generally provides enough challenge for beginners coming off SAD, but is still easily attainable once you learn to center your meals around something that isn't pasta or bread.
Protein -- set your protein to .5-1g per pound of lean body weight, or about 100g, and try to get around it (it's okay if you're a little over or a little under). This is generally a good starting point for most people, as you can get pretty close with 3-4oz of a protein source per meal, which is reasonable for most people without trying to artificially inflate or deflate the amount.
Fat -- fill the rest in with fat. [Insert stuff about how it looks like a scary number at first, but fats really are your friend, here.]
[Insert types of food recommendations here. Talk about getting the bulk of your carbs from non-starchy vegetables and learning to base meals around proteins and vegetables instead of starches and carbs, and for cooking everything in a fat.]
This type of guideline provides (in my opinion) enough flexibility to cover most executions of LCHF, while still providing clear definitions and guidelines.
DW;- "....strikes me as doing exactly what you said you didn't want to do." - Not sure I understand your point here. My intent with the "list" was to address the most common misconceptions folks bring with them to LCHF from the "common knowledge" bandied about in the Forums (swamp) or even society in general (low carb/high protein e.g.). Read in that context, even #8 (re cals) isn't "doing exactly....", it's not saying "you must" but rather that cal counting is not "primary". I do agree though that if the intent isn't clear to you, it's probably not to others as well and the wording should be changed.
- "I'm of the opinion that trying to define goals or whatever of.." - completely agree with the entire paragraph
- ".....like your "LCHF is NOT" list, but I think we could do a sort of definitions"/glossary/ "LCHF IS" type thing, too" - Agree here as well that we should do it TOO. I would see two separate "thread links" in the Announcement post the first entitled "LCHF IS" which would be a "closed" thread consisting only of that post and include whatever "definitions/glossary and intro appropriate. A separate link to "LCHF IS NOT" (again probably a one post "closed" topic) and as many "closed one post topics" as necessary including some of those on Frob's current outline and BS's for example. A second section (but on the same "Admissions" "master posting" would consist of the listing of of links to "open" topic threads (videos, books, or iLos's "athletic performance" idea e.g.
- "Perhaps something like...:" - I'm in complete agreement with the content of the "LCHF IS" you propose but....
....I would suggest we take each one of the "proposed closed topic threads" (can we agree to call them that just for the sake of being on the same page?), one at a time and each in it's own "temporary" thread for now, just to try and stay focused and to allow any interested members to comment and contribute.
You take charge of the "LCHF IS" topic, start a new thread dedicated to that, include the proposed verbiage you outlined above (and whatever "intro" you think should be included in the final version) and open it up to the group for comments/suggestions. Once everyone has had an opportunity to participate and comment, you take the comments into consideration, edit to a "final" version, post it to a new "clean" single post "closed" topic with the heading "LCHF IS" and Frob can then link to it in the Announcements "master".
Likewise, BS does the same with hers, I keep this one going, and Frob if he has a specific topic he'd like to see included (although he already has his hands full with the Announcements page and could always add another at a later date if that fits his time constraints better. (as could any of us)
Should any members have a particular topic they would like to see included (iLos e.g.) the process would be the same. Create a new post topic with an outline of the proposed content, open it up to group comments/suggestions and then edit them into a final draft and submit it to you for a final determination of inclusion as a link on Announcements and whether it be included as a "closed" or "open" thread.
No reason we have to have everything finalized before going "live" or that we can't make additions or deletions as time goes on so when you are satisfied with yours Frob can add it, if it takes BS (me, or anyone else) a little longer, it gets added when it's ready and we continue to "build on" the master. If we decide to edit or delete one of them down the line the OP would be able to edit or Frob could simply remove the link if necessary.
Sound like a workable plan?0 -
deansdad101 wrote: »No reason we have to have everything finalized before going "live" or that we can't make additions or deletions as time goes on so when you are satisfied with yours Frob can add it, if it takes BS (me, or anyone else) a little longer, it gets added when it's ready and we continue to "build on" the master. If we decide to edit or delete one of them down the line the OP would be able to edit or Frob could simply remove the link if necessary.
Sound like a workable plan?
Just to clarify, you don't need to wait for me to edit it. You have the power as well (DD). Any of the moderators can edit it at will. If you would rather not edit it, I'll get around to it. But, you don't need to wait for me if inspiration strikes.0 -
Frob;deansdad101 wrote: »No reason we have to have everything finalized before going "live" or that we can't make additions or deletions as time goes on so when you are satisfied with yours Frob can add it, if it takes BS (me, or anyone else) a little longer, it gets added when it's ready and we continue to "build on" the master. If we decide to edit or delete one of them down the line the OP would be able to edit or Frob could simply remove the link if necessary.
Sound like a workable plan?
Just to clarify, you don't need to wait for me to edit it. You have the power as well (DD). Any of the moderators can edit it at will. If you would rather not edit it, I'll get around to it. But, you don't need to wait for me if inspiration strikes.
I guess I was thinking of it more along the lines of equitable distribution of the work load on the one hand and consistency of design of the Announcements page on the other.
Back in the old days, long before the current crop of "fill in the blanks" website builder apps existed and MSFT FrontPage was closest thing around to a WYSIWYG tool, I built a site for our Bus Safety Team. Back then, even things like putting a video on the site was a major project - required file conversion and hand written code (which I was never very good at) just to get it up on the site.
We actually had videos (analog and edited in Pinnacle) of the presentations at the different schools including some "skits" where the kids performed a "Readers Theater" type play at a whole school assembly, on the site two years before the main District website had the capability of putting video up (even with the whole IT Dept trying to figure out how to do it <g>. (But if your district IT dept is anything like ours, you'll understand that it wasn't actually a very high "bar".)
Anyway, once it was set up and running, I said the same thing as you did to the "Team" members - "hey it's easy enough and any of you guys that want to make changes can go on and make whatever changes you like" - what a DISASTER!!!
While they had the best of intentions, more than once it took me 5X longer to "fix" what they screwed up then it would have to just do it in the first place.
"If you want something done right......." suddenly made a whole lot more sense to me <VBG>. It wasn't just the "technical" parts of it even as much as it was the overall design theme of the site as a whole that got trashed (things like embedding a video link to "their" particular video in the text instead of on the "Videos" page where it belonged or killing the FTP settings, screwing up the file conversion process and uploading code that "broke" the whole site, uploading to the wrong webserver, etc).
So I guess I still harbor some bad memories of "too many hands in the pot".
I didn't mean to "draft" you into the job, but since you had already started working on it, and you have a good handle on using the current flavor of BBCode, just figured it would be "cleaner" if I wasn't jumping in there and screwing up what you had in mind (design wise). I'm just not comfortable enough with the current process to risk messing up your work.
Once it's set up and running, I don't see any problem with any of us adding a link or two when the "inspiration strikes" (as long as the changes are "blessed" in advance by the mod group).
Couple of questions on the workings of BBCode and how it works with MFP. (It's all new to me - too many years "out of the loop").
All I can find is a very basic list of code for stuff like bolding, underlining, etc - most of which exists on the icon toolbar. Is there a more comprehensive list of the code that will work with MFP?
For example, is it possible to set up a multi-column table on the Announcements page?
(I'm thinking of separate columns for the "closed" and "open" lists of links for example).
Can it be done?
And, is there a "trick" I'm missing for making links "live"?
Not sure why, but when I set up my "dummy" group and added links to the announcements portion (using the toolbar icon which works fine on the "discussion" posts) - it worked sometimes but not others (just added the text of the link but not the hyperlink).
Opps....just tried it again and it worked!! Must have been something on their end last time.
Look like they did add a few new "features" the other day when a bunch of folks were reporting "access denied" so that was probably it,
All I've seen so far is a new "preview" option for posts (which is nice).
Still nothing though on the "notifications" or a "new posts" icon on the home page for Groups (which would really be nice)....oh well.
Anybody seen any other new ones for the Groups?
0 -
"Anybody seen any other new ones for the Groups?"
I would love to see a Newbie FAQ on LCHF for Vegetarians. I just read the now closed discussion by an OP who was told she can't logically/realistically do a <20 gr WOE.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10361470/so-bloody-sick-of#latest
What I see happening in public, in FB and other LC topic sites is a demonizing of ALL carbs- veggie or otherwise, ALL grains-when many do not cause inflammation, for EVERYONE. So seeing the REALITY of how LCHF is going to be different for vegetarians might inform before there are unsafe/unrealistic diet plans.
I've seen the 'crazy-making' food boredom when trying to stay well under 50 carbs total as a Vegetarian, Vegans will have an impossible time of it....it ain't pretty, and can't be maintained.
LCHF CAN'T be all things to all people, but I feel it is possible to follow a ~70-130 gr carb plan, not be forced to just choose SAD/healthy plate, and gain overall health, even have weight loss.
But newbie enthusiasm and desire to attain purity in Keto needs to have a "Dutch Uncle" FAQ reality check up front. THEN they can ask questions, and learn how to make it work for their special needs.
0 -
deansdad101 wrote: »Been thinking a lot about the impending changes and additions to the Group "Announcements" and/or FAQ's/Mission Statement and Frob's statement in his first draft where he said;
" I am hesitant to set any firm line on what is low-carb and what is not."
It's a comment I completely agree with since I too believe it's neither our place, NOR is it even possible, to "set a firm line" or even define exactly, what "LCHF" is.
I began by approaching it from the perspective of listing a bunch of "generally accepted" concepts and guideline "recommendations" but continuously ran up against the roadblock of the wide diversity of those considering the LCHF lifestyle
Not just from a medical but also ethical or any number of other personal choice, considerations.
As a Group, we must take all of those into account and encourage (and assist) all members in finding the "right mix" of the various alternatives of LCHF for EACH of them.
That we can do that is, IMO, perhaps the greatest benefit of LCHF. Yes, I do believe that there are certain "lines" that should not be crossed, and I'm not a big fan of "one from column A and one from B" but that doesn't mean that someone can't be successful either including dairy or not, e.g. There will never be total agreement on those types of things, nor should there be.
Unlike other approaches that insist that there is one "right" way to do it and if you are not meeting with success it MUST BE because you are either not doing it the way "we told you", you are "obviously lying about your cal intake or overstating your exercise cals out", or the famous "or else you are just a glutton or a sloth" - LCHF says "you just need a couple "tweaks" to adjust the program to fit YOUR specific needs", and someone here will be able to help you pin down the needed "tweaks".
We say, unlike those so locked in their dogma, that LCHF (in any one particular form) might NOT be right for YOU and ANY one particular program is definitely NOT "right" for everybody.
So my list of "generally accepted concepts and guidelines" just never really got anywhere.
It finally occurred to me that perhaps a list of what LCHF is NOT might be more productive.
I do believe though that a few "consensus" definitions of terms would be helpful - not so much because it actually "matters" if the upper limit of LC is 150 or 119 (it doesn't) but only so that we can all be "on the same page" when discussing things that are very open to individual interpretation, so let's start with those (and of course any of these can be "adjusted" as the group sees fit since it's all relative anyway).
On Carb Levels, can we agree on the following terms:- "Carbs" means TOTAL carbs. Although it's totally acceptable for one to track/count and compute "NET" carbs if that is their wont (and belief) "x" Total Carbs will almost always be a number lower than "x" Net Carbs and when discussing any individual situation it really does matter when someone reports "I've been under 20 carbs/day...." whether those are Total 20 or Net 20 (which might be 60 Total), so we're not arguing the case of which is "right" but rather which it IS.
- 100-150/day we'll call LOWER Carb - a significant reduction from the SAD "HIGH Carb" levels but above the LOW Carb numbers generally considered to be the threshold for LCHF.
- 50-100/day the upper range of LCHF where "most" will either begin to experience some (if not all) of the benefits of LCHF, OR where those who have successfully navigated the waters of a Very Low Carb/Hight Fat (VLCHF) and become Fat Adapted (FA) "may" be able to maintain both target weight and an FA state.
- 20-50/day the range in which "most" will likely produce a measurable level of ketone bodies high enough to either induce the "switch" to fat burning or to be able to maintain a FA state (after it has been established). It might also be the range in which, if maintained for a long enough period of time, "some" ("many"?) will, in fact become FA.
- 20/day or fewer, the range which "most" will require for a period of time ranging from, at least, 3-6 weeks (typically), to enter Nutritional Ketosis (NK) or become Fat Adapted (FA).
- NK or FA is defined as a "measured" blood B-OHB level of 0.5-3.0mmols and cannot be accurately defined by urine or breath testing (at least at the current state of technology) methods. While it is entirely possible for a person to actually BE FA or in NK without measuring B-OHB levels, it simply is not possible for them to know "for sure" that they are or are not using any of the various "subjective" indicators and as such effectively evaluate if changes to current macro ratios or levels might be indicated.
Certainly ANY ONE individual can argue that these particular numbers don't apply to their particular circumstance, just as it would be possible to argue the same with ANY specific numbers.
But it's not the specific numbers that matter, it's only that we are discussing things from the same (ANY "same"), frame of reference.
On to what LCHF is NOT:- LCHF is NOT - Atkins, Paleo, South Beach, Primal, or any of a 100 other "specific" diets - BUT, ANY of those CAN BE LCHF. Point being, there is NO ONE "right" way to do LCHF except the one "right" for YOU. It "might" be any of those, or something in between - it just "depends" (on what is "right" for YOU)
- LCHF is NOT -low carb + high protein. There are well documented metabolic and physiological reasons why higher protein levels in combination with reduced dietary fat levels are not just counter productive but can be medically dangerous and it would be irresponsible for us, as a group to suggest otherwise. Low Carb + High Fat + MODERATE Protein is the proper balance.
- LCHF is NOT likely to be successful WITHOUT simultaneous (and significant) reductions in sugar (in all its forms), grains, starches, and refined/processed foodstuffs, both because it's not possible to reduce total carbs sufficiently while continuing to consume them and because they are the major contributors to insulin level "spikes" which trigger the metabolic chain effects.
- LCHF is NOT a "lose weight QUICK" diet plan. A properly designed and complied with LCHF diet WILL produce weight loss results, in addition to the many other positive benefits but weight loss is a secondary (although important) consideration, a "side benefit", NOT the be all and end all (for "most").
- LCHF is NOT (necessarily) "ketosis" - although it "might" lead one to a level of ketosis wherein one achieves and maintains ketone bodies in the blood sufficient to achieve FA/NK. It is, however, entirely possible to achieve many of the benefits of LCHF at carb intake levels above those required for FA/NK but that is still MUCH BETTER (for overall health and wellness) than those levels mandated by the SAD diet.
- LCHF is NOT a "miracle cure" for obesity, insulin resistance, T2(or1)DM, heart or CA disease, epilepsy, cancer, alzheimers, ADHD, or any of a number of other maladies frequently mentioned - but it HAS been clinically demonstrated that it CAN have very positive effects on MANY of them in numerous observational and clinical studies and individual instances.
- LCHF is NOT "appropriate", "right", or even advisable for EVERYONE. A significant (but continuously decreasing) portion of the population has absolutely no problem dealing with levels of daily carb intake that could quite literally kill those with elevated levels of insulin resistance (many of the seriously underweight, e.g.). Their numbers, as a percentage of the population are, however, declining and we simply do not know how lifelong levels of excessive carb intake "might" affect even those not currently at or near the onset of IR.
- LCHF is NOT primarily dependent on CICO or "net" calories and does not consider that "a calorie is a calorie" or that exercise, per se, is either a "requirement for weight loss" or an excuse to "eat back" exercise cals. This is NOT to say that total cal intake doesn't matter, or that exercise isn't beneficial for other health and wellness reasons - just that it is not a "required" component of LCHF.
These are, of course, simply my opinions, suggestions, include my own biases and subject to any modification, alteration, or flat out rejection by any and all as to whether or not they should be incorporated, or referenced in the aforementioned "announcements/faqs" discussion.
Agree or disagree, comment or dismiss, allow to influence your own thinking and opinion - or not.
It is my belief that having that discussion (including ALL points of view) here, in a thread that could be made available to those "checking us out" to see if this is a place that might "fit" for them - would be extremely helpful and beneficial for them.
Rather than a list of what "you must do if you want to play in our sandbox", links to threads like this (with input representing various points of view) would expose them not only to alternative points of view but provide them insight as to how they might wish to proceed or at least with specific questions they would want answered to help them make those decisions.
Frob's off to a great start with what is now posted as the singular "Announcement".
A little further refinement of the current verbiage, followed by a list of "links" to specific threads on topics of relevance would, IMO, be the "perfect" solution.
ONE "announcement" with a continuously growing (and changing) list of links.
For all of the ideas for specific "FAQ's" suggested to date one need only create a post thread with the intent of having it included on the Announcement list.
So, for example, a list of books or videos (or any of the other suggested ideas);
Begin a new thread (which remains "open" and active) with an appropriate and relevant title, like "Video Recommendations FAQ" and indicate in the initial post that it is intended to be included as a FAQ "referenced" thread.
Encourage posters to contribute their favorites, with a link and perhaps a short "review" but stick to the topic and not wander off topic (me/pot/kettle <g>).
Since the thread itself remains active and alive it's available for anyone to add their suggestions to as they come on them and the info is constantly updated and it's a "living document".
If need be the mods could "trim" any superfluous OT ramblings (I think?), or transfer just the video links to a new (closed) thread and then link to that.
Thoughts?
I think you're right on. We had a similar discussion a year ago that caused me to make a blog about it:
DittoDan's Keto Sub Groups Blog
I think I broke it down further, but your statement is plenty good.
I hope this helps,
Dan the Man from Michigan
Keto / The Recipe Water Fasting / E.A.S.Y. Exercise Program
0 -
KETOGENICGURL wrote: »"Anybody seen any other new ones for the Groups?"
I would love to see a Newbie FAQ on LCHF for Vegetarians. I just read the now closed discussion by an OP who was told she can't logically/realistically do a <20 gr WOE.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10361470/so-bloody-sick-of#latest
What I see happening in public, in FB and other LC topic sites is a demonizing of ALL carbs- veggie or otherwise, ALL grains-when many do not cause inflammation, for EVERYONE. So seeing the REALITY of how LCHF is going to be different for vegetarians might inform before there are unsafe/unrealistic diet plans.
I've seen the 'crazy-making' food boredom when trying to stay well under 50 carbs total as a Vegetarian, Vegans will have an impossible time of it....it ain't pretty, and can't be maintained.
LCHF CAN'T be all things to all people, but I feel it is possible to follow a ~70-130 gr carb plan, not be forced to just choose SAD/healthy plate, and gain overall health, even have weight loss.
But newbie enthusiasm and desire to attain purity in Keto needs to have a "Dutch Uncle" FAQ reality check up front. THEN they can ask questions, and learn how to make it work for their special needs.
I agree, that thread was rather concerning and a bit scary. I too have seen other vegetarians struggling greatly trying to hit the self imposed incorrect keto limit of 20-50g.0 -
I see this is a really old OP that seems to have been brought back by comments, but I'm going to chime in and suggest that part of this list is exclusive to LCHF. My understanding of this group (and maybe it was different in 2014) is that it is Low Carb.
Specifically, #2 is an issue for me. I'm trying to do low carb / high protein (moderate protein, depending on how you define it) with 150g of protein daily. That amounts to 0.88g / day of protein per lb. of total body weight, which is not super high, but not low either. Depending on your definition of "moderate," I believe my protein goals fit the definition of moderate. However, I'm not really eating what I would consider to be "high fat" either. I'm trying to lose weight, so total goal calories - protein calories - carb calories (there are still some) leaves me with only 73g of fat. That isn't exactly "High Fat" (again, it depends on your definition) either.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »I see this is a really old OP that seems to have been brought back by comments, but I'm going to chime in and suggest that part of this list is exclusive to LCHF. My understanding of this group (and maybe it was different in 2014) is that it is Low Carb.
Specifically, #2 is an issue for me. I'm trying to do low carb / high protein (moderate protein, depending on how you define it) with 150g of protein daily. That amounts to 0.88g / day of protein per lb. of total body weight, which is not super high, but not low either. Depending on your definition of "moderate," I believe my protein goals fit the definition of moderate. However, I'm not really eating what I would consider to be "high fat" either. I'm trying to lose weight, so total goal calories - protein calories - carb calories (there are still some) leaves me with only 73g of fat. That isn't exactly "High Fat" (again, it depends on your definition) either.
This is a very good point. The high fat component really only plays a role in long-term sustainability and if someone is determined to maintain low-carb at the tail end of their weight loss and beyond. When you have a lot to lose, you don't need the high fat from diet (as your body is providing a large portion). So long as your deficit doesn't exceed your body's ability to provide calories from fat, you're probably fine. As you get closer and closer to the goal, you'll either want to add back in more carbs or more fat.
Protein shouldn't exceed a certain percentage of total calories burned, not necessarily total calories consumed. As long as people realize that low-carb and low-fat is a "not forever" way of eating, I think that is something people here will be willing to support. Most here are against crash diets and extremely low calories, which means fat is kept pretty high compared to many diets. I know a few people who have done PSMF (Protein Sparing Modified Fasts) in here. While they're not something we encourage, those who embark on them will need as much support or more than those on less extreme plans. The amount of protein you're eating definitely falls into the moderate range.
I don't know your carb or calorie goal. You are probably very near the maximum deficit that MFP will allow for a man. I am assuming you set it using some tool like the keto-caculator and are watching for those points where it tells you that you need to increase calories or risk muscle loss. You know your body best.
Also, 73 grams isn't too low compared to what is considered low-fat outside of here. When I did CICO, I was around 40 grams of fat a day. You're at double where I was. Maybe we'll call it moderate fat?
0
