why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
I LOVE carbs and will eat as many as I can, as long as they fit into my macros...its all about CICO as far as I'm concerned
0 -
To simplify it for people who think that CICO (I agree it is the MOST important thing) is the ONLY thing that matters when changing their body
What are you responding to? My oversimplification of CICO? No one ever said eat twinkies or steak. Just that body comp is affected by types of food, which in turn manipulates BMR, which can HELP create or slow weight/body fat losshttp://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
Who has ever recommended eating this way?
No one would ever do this. It's ridiculous.
And neither of which would be a healthy diet.
no one ever said eat twinkies vs steak, yet you used it as a valid comparison point....
if you agree no one eats that way, then why even bring it up???
0 -
The low-carb people I know do acknowledge CICO, and I did as well when I was doing it. Now I tend to have around 100g carbs per day or less. That's not my goal, it just happens that way.0
-
Reading comprehension much? I said eating the same cal in twinkies vs steak would have a different effect on body comp and continuing weight loss
What are you responding to? My oversimplification of CICO? No one ever said eat twinkies or steak. Just that body comp is affected by types of food, which in turn manipulates BMR, which can HELP create or slow weight/body fat losshttp://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
Who has ever recommended eating this way?
No one would ever do this. It's ridiculous.
And neither of which would be a healthy diet.
Oversimplification? You didn't oversimplify anything you threw out two bogus diet suggestions that no one would ever eat.
No one suggested that body comp has nothing to do with what you eat.
But it does require CICO. whether losing, gaining, maintaining.
You can recomp on low carb, vegan, Paleo....whatever diet you want.
What OP is saying is, the most vocal of low carbers seem to think it's the best way to lose weight and that they don't think CICO matter.
A small one at best and only if you actually didn't eat anything else.0 -
To simplify it for people who think that CICO is the ONLY thing that matters when changing their body
What are you responding to? My oversimplification of CICO? No one ever said eat twinkies or steak. Just that body comp is affected by types of food, which in turn manipulates BMR, which can HELP create or slow weight/body fat losshttp://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
Who has ever recommended eating this way?
No one would ever do this. It's ridiculous.
And neither of which would be a healthy diet.
no one ever said eat twinkies vs steak, yet you used it as a valid comparison point....
if you agree no one eats that way, then why even bring it up???
OK, I agree with you that macros/micros matter for body recomp....
Again, my op was just about why some low carb types tend to deny CICO works for them...0 -
The calorie and food confusion again. Think of calories as another macronutrient and then plan your meals.
To simplify it for people who think that CICO (I agree it is the MOST important thing) is the ONLY thing that matters when changing their body
What are you responding to? My oversimplification of CICO? No one ever said eat twinkies or steak. Just that body comp is affected by types of food, which in turn manipulates BMR, which can HELP create or slow weight/body fat losshttp://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
Who has ever recommended eating this way?
No one would ever do this. It's ridiculous.
And neither of which would be a healthy diet.
no one ever said eat twinkies vs steak, yet you used it as a valid comparison point....
if you agree no one eats that way, then why even bring it up???
0 -
Reading comprehension much? I said eating the same cal in twinkies vs steak would have a different effect on body comp and continuing weight loss
What are you responding to? My oversimplification of CICO? No one ever said eat twinkies or steak. Just that body comp is affected by types of food, which in turn manipulates BMR, which can HELP create or slow weight/body fat losshttp://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
Who has ever recommended eating this way?
No one would ever do this. It's ridiculous.
And neither of which would be a healthy diet.
Oversimplification? You didn't oversimplify anything you threw out two bogus diet suggestions that no one would ever eat.
No one suggested that body comp has nothing to do with what you eat.
But it does require CICO. whether losing, gaining, maintaining.
You can recomp on low carb, vegan, Paleo....whatever diet you want.
What OP is saying is, the most vocal of low carbers seem to think it's the best way to lose weight and that they don't think CICO matter.
You're a peach aren't you?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Well, I have to say this thread is a refreshing surprise. I'm enjoying it.
Me too. And I'm happy that my impression that most of the regular low carb posters were a pretty reasonable lot has been confirmed. (I do wonder if it's just not the right forum for the ideas being solicited, which I've definitely seen here, but usually from newer posters.)I've posted a lot on other low carb threads, but I'll just throw in my own experience. I've low carbed and it didn't work for me because eating until I was full didn't work for an emotional eater.
Yes. I found that lowering my carbs (which I consider different from actual low carbing) worked for me because most of the major sources of carbs (excluding fruits and vegetables, which I love) leave me cold when compared to other food sources (potatoes and sweet potatoes are an exception, as are the very best sweets). So reducing calories from courses I don't care that much about, or having lunch without it being a sandwich or the like was not only lowering carbs, but a way of actively making sure I was eating more calories I considered worth it. Balancing my macros also helped my energy be more consistent. Low carbing I see as less about simple preference or balance (of course) and more a tool to deal with cravings or hunger or to get into keto, and physical cravings or hunger aren't an issue for me while dieting--they have never been why I failed. Nor can I personally relate to the experience of eating carbs triggering extra hunger.
Psychological desire to eat, yes, I struggle with that, but that's the emotional eating thing, and I don't find that my macro mix matters that much or that my focus is particularly on carbs. Also, sorry to say that I've always been someone who could overeat on fat and protein just as easily as carbs. Cutting carbs for me always means reduced calories in the short term, since you don't fully replace what you cut, but then quickly I start adding in other things. If I were to low carb without calorie counting, it would probably not work for me, not once I got over the "wait, I have to be careful with portion size" thing, especially with higher fat foods. Sure, I wouldn't eat 2000 calories over my daily TDEE, but only 250 or so, but that's how I got fat in the first place (and meats and butter and cheese and sometimes nuts played a central role).
But this is simply why different strategies work for different people.
So long as low carbers don't claim it's something other than CICO (which most on MFP don't seem to) and don't insist that everyone struggles with the same food issues or has the same response to carbs that they do, I have no arguments with low carb. Don't see it as something that would be useful for me, but I'm sure it's useful for others.
For what it's worth, I suspect that my preferred carb percentage will vary over time, but maybe as I experiment I'll find something that changes my mind.0 -
To simplify it for people who think that CICO is the ONLY thing that matters when changing their body
What are you responding to? My oversimplification of CICO? No one ever said eat twinkies or steak. Just that body comp is affected by types of food, which in turn manipulates BMR, which can HELP create or slow weight/body fat losshttp://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
Who has ever recommended eating this way?
No one would ever do this. It's ridiculous.
And neither of which would be a healthy diet.
no one ever said eat twinkies vs steak, yet you used it as a valid comparison point....
if you agree no one eats that way, then why even bring it up???
OK, I agree with you that macros/micros matter for body recomp....
Again, my op was just about why some low carb types tend to deny CICO works for them...
When I used VLCD to cut, I didn't count cals though. No way I could eat more than 2300-2700cal of meat in a day lol0 -
I am going to throw this one out there, because I got into a debate with someone in another thread and it left me pretty mind blown. The persons basic assumptions where the following:
1. they were not calorie restricting (however they were losing weight)
2. if they ate 1200 calories of a regular diet of say 30% carbs they did not lose, but when they ate a 1200 calories "low carb" diet they lost weight.
3. throughout the course of the thread others came in and made the argument that CICO did not apply when was going low carb.
Before all my low carb friends come flying in here to say that I am knocking low carb, let me be clear that is not what I am doing. The way that I see it is that low carb, IIFYM, keto, IF, etc are just tools to get one into a calorie deficit, and one is not superior to the other. I just get mind blown when people say "I calorie restricted and lost nothing, but when I went low carb I lost" or "fat loss only happens when one is low carb" or "CICO does not apply to me and only low carb works for me" and on and on….
I actually tried low carb and it was not for me. My energy in the gym was non-existent and i would end up binging on whatever carbs I had in the house.
It would be nice if some low carbers came in here and acutely refuted this…
OR
if you really believe that CICO does not apply, then I would be curious as to why you think this…
ETA - I am not referring to people that have to low carb due to a medical condition. However, CICO would still apply in that instance….
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am medically unable to deal with carbs. Previously I dieted for a long time and couldn't lose unless I dropped below 1200. Once I saw a Dr and got properly medicated the weight flew off. I will never be able to eat a lot of grams of carbs. I also don't believe that fat makes you fat. Read Gary Taubes. I am still mindful of calories in the sense that I need enough, but I can finally lose while eating more than 1200 cal.0 -
Oh boy..........I am going to throw this one out there, because I got into a debate with someone in another thread and it left me pretty mind blown. The persons basic assumptions where the following:
1. they were not calorie restricting (however they were losing weight)
2. if they ate 1200 calories of a regular diet of say 30% carbs they did not lose, but when they ate a 1200 calories "low carb" diet they lost weight.
3. throughout the course of the thread others came in and made the argument that CICO did not apply when was going low carb.
Before all my low carb friends come flying in here to say that I am knocking low carb, let me be clear that is not what I am doing. The way that I see it is that low carb, IIFYM, keto, IF, etc are just tools to get one into a calorie deficit, and one is not superior to the other. I just get mind blown when people say "I calorie restricted and lost nothing, but when I went low carb I lost" or "fat loss only happens when one is low carb" or "CICO does not apply to me and only low carb works for me" and on and on….
I actually tried low carb and it was not for me. My energy in the gym was non-existent and i would end up binging on whatever carbs I had in the house.
It would be nice if some low carbers came in here and acutely refuted this…
OR
if you really believe that CICO does not apply, then I would be curious as to why you think this…
ETA - I am not referring to people that have to low carb due to a medical condition. However, CICO would still apply in that instance….
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am medically unable to deal with carbs. Previously I dieted for a long time and couldn't lose unless I dropped below 1200. Once I saw a Dr and got properly medicated the weight flew off. I will never be able to eat a lot of grams of carbs. I also don't believe that fat makes you fat. Read Gary Taubes. I am still mindful of calories in the sense that I need enough, but I can finally lose while eating more than 1200 cal.
0 -
I did keto (lost 35 lbs in about 4 months) last year but I also tracked calories and ate about 1500-1800 per day and did moderate exercise (mostly hiking with my dog). Some of it was water but mostly fat and I didn't have the urge to cheat for the entire time... THAT was new for me. In previous weight loss attempts, I tried to include all food types/groups and always always had a tough time sticking to it because I just got too hungry. I don't think carbs are demons, although I think refined sugar is becoming more obviously a food that everyone should avoid as much as possible. I like fruit but I limit it to some berries because they trigger my appetite more. Not everyone needs to do a low carb diet to lose and stay in a calorie deficit. I'm not one of those people that will naturally eat less but when I am tracking, I find it MUCH easier to stay on track with a low carb (20 net gms) moderate protein (80 gms) and the rest from fat. Calories DO count but our bodies were designed to put on weight for survival so I'll use my "tricks" to keep myself satisfied while in a deficit.
I also had bloodwork done before and after and it has improved so much! The doctor is totally on board with me continuing keto.
At Christmas, we went on vacation so I just decided to eat whatever I wanted. It's taken me 2 months to get back on track because the carb binge undid months of keto for me (gained 10 lbs in 2 months too). I tried to go to a paleo program that included more fruits and starchy veges (and no dairy) and no tracking but I still ate tons of food. It's clear to me that keto was my best weapon and so I've restarted this week and have had no problems staying at a deficit again.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »So no, it's not the only way to lose, and it doesn't trump CICO (although I think it does help regulate hormones).
This is the issue for many on LCHF. There are stories upon stories of ppl who ate a SAD, say 1500 calories a day and exercised and didnt lose weight or gained. Then they ate 1500 calories a day and exercised but ate LCHF and they lost weight in the short and long terms. Insulin is a hormone, if you have high insulin like IR or hormonal weirdness like PCOS, hormones play a HUGE roll in how you process what you eat and the types of food you eat.
So 1500 is a deficit yes, but what you eat, for many, is more important that how much you eat when it comes to weightloss.
wouldn't medicine for said medical conditions affect the "out" side of CO so at the end of the day, barring a medical condition, they would lose the same as the other person if they were both on 1500….
Sometimes Yes I would think so. But if you've ever been on Metformin, which is what the most popular IR med is, the more carbs you eat the more things 'run' thru you. Being on the potty all day with LBS (leaky butt syndrome) is horrid. And even then, the meds only control so much insulin production, doesnt fix it. So eating a SAD is still going to cause some insulin problems and spikes even if you are on the max dose of Met.
IR and PCOS and Metabolic Syndrome are not curable, anymore than diabetes is. You can get rid of some or all of the symptoms if you eat correctly for your condition and keep the weight off. But if you go back to eating carbs, the symptoms come back.
And I am not sure there are many who would rather medicate themselves on things that 1.quit working with few backup meds to turn to or 2. be on meds the rest of their lives instead of helping their medical condition thru food.
So yes, the Met changes the CO but you have to know you have that medical condition in the first place, which often comes AFTER you've come here to the mfp or other forums complaining you are weighing and measuring correctly, you are eating (insert low amount of calories here) and you arent losing weight and then get ridiculed by those who firmly believe CICO is the beginning and end of the discussion.
As i stated before, the LCHF boards have repeatedly confirmed that the majority, but not all, who do LCHF have some sort of medical problem that LCHF helps tremendously.
thankfully, I have never had to take meds for any kind of insulin or metabolic syndrome..
usually, when people come back and say they are logging accurately and use a food scale, my next round of advice is to go to DR and get tested for medical condition ….
Many on here will basically call the person who said this that they were lying and to open their diary for more inspection, etc long BEFORE they are given suggestions on what to ask for from the Doctor. Not saying you do, as I dont know you or your posting history really. But Ive seen that scenario often and some come to the 'haven' of the LCHF boards after being berated here.
General doctors often dont know what to look for. They run the standard simple thyroid test and usually and A1C and if they are normal, which for IR, PCOS and metabolic syndrome tey usually are, tell to eat less and move more and send you on your way. You have to actually know to ask for a fasting insulin test. With IR and Metabolic syndrome at least, your A1C and glucose levels are almost always dead set normal, it is the insulin that is very high and that's the problem.
So a little understanding that ppl dont know to ask for these things or are aware of these issues before the SAD fails them helps all of us be more mentally and physically healthy.
If you have a good endocrinologist, you won't have to ask for anything. Especially not something as simple as a fasting insulin test. .
Only if you know you need an endorcrinologist to begin with. Who randomly asks to see one unless they know there is a problem first? That can often be the problem they ask their regular doctor and he doesnt know enough to send them to an endocrinologist and their numbers are normal so he figures, like many here, they are lying about what they eat and how much they move and send them home.
A person who is in-tune with their body typically knows when something is up.
If a person is eating frequently, ravenously hungry, gaining weight, etc., it's usually pretty apparent that something is going on with their endocrine system.
A person has to see their PCP for a referral anyways. If a person continues to suffer, most PCP's will refer them to an endo.
Unless they've never known what it's like not to feel the way they do. They might well take it for granted that that's their normal. Or sure, they may wonder, "why do I feel so bad", but find themselves told "hey, you're good, see look at these numbers [perhaps not the relevant ones], it's all in your head".
That's very true but most people develop metabolic syndrome and/or insulin resistance over time… They usually aren't born with it. So chances are they felt a certain way BEFORE beginning to develop metabolic syndrome. Then came the dizziness, extreme hunger, shakiness, abdominal weight gain, vision problems, etc.
Sure, I was told I was hypoglycemic even tho I never had a test showing I had low blood sugar and that's why i was dizzy or hungry, etc. Some were told just to eat less and the hunger would stop, or not to stand up so fast and the dizziness would go away, or the weight gain was because they were eating too much and not moving enough. Even over time, things dont pop out to a doctor to order the relevent tests.
I am not saying some dont log correctly or lie to themselves, but just trying to bring awareness to the fact that some have medical problems and without knowing what or why find a diet that works for them when a SAD failed.
I agree.
I know this is off topic but I have to mention it..because I went through a lot of bs before I was helped.
Things like hypoglycemia can go undiagnosed even with relevant tests. For example, my A1C was 5.3 in October. My fasting blood glucose is generally 73-90. That's all normal. Yet I can't eat even moderate carbs without going into the 60s and feeling like crap after half an hour. And forget about exercise while consuming carbs. I had to bring my food log and bg monitor to prove I was legitimately having issues. If the test results look fine..youre considered healthy.
I had a five hour glucose tolerance test (they're not used as much anymore from what my endo said) thirteen years ago and my bg dropped to 47..insulin was high. I was told to eat more, do the low glycemic thing and have some sugar if my levels got low. I was given another glucose tolerance test a few years later because I was complaining that low glycemic wasn't helping and my bg only dropped to 68..but my insulin secretion was through the roof. Still no endo referral. I was told to eat more often. After that lack of help I stopped going to the pcp from age 20-25. It wasn't until after I had my kid and could not get my blood glucose stable or lose weight that I found a new pcp who finally referred me to an endocrinologist. Even then I needed to bring my logs to prove I was having lows when any normal person wouldn't.
Just going to the doctor and having them check a person out isn't always a sure fire way to get a diagnosis.
Fun fact..many people with hypoglycemia have been misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder and/or depression.0 -
This is the basic premise of why people believe low carb defies the law of thermodynamics, satiety. Pretty much all studies that compare low carb with higher carb shows equal or better weight loss. The other factor that is generally missed in these studies is while the higher carb groups are restricted in calories, the low carb groups aren't, because satiety.wonderfullymadebyhim wrote: »I did keto (lost 35 lbs in about 4 months) last year but I also tracked calories and ate about 1500-1800 per day and did moderate exercise (mostly hiking with my dog). Some of it was water but mostly fat and I didn't have the urge to cheat for the entire time... THAT was new for me. In previous weight loss attempts, I tried to include all food types/groups and always always had a tough time sticking to it because I just got too hungry. I don't think carbs are demons, although I think refined sugar is becoming more obviously a food that everyone should avoid as much as possible. I like fruit but I limit it to some berries because they trigger my appetite more. Not everyone needs to do a low carb diet to lose and stay in a calorie deficit. I'm not one of those people that will naturally eat less but when I am tracking, I find it MUCH easier to stay on track with a low carb (20 net gms) moderate protein (80 gms) and the rest from fat. Calories DO count but our bodies were designed to put on weight for survival so I'll use my "tricks" to keep myself satisfied while in a deficit.
I also had bloodwork done before and after and it has improved so much! The doctor is totally on board with me continuing keto.
At Christmas, we went on vacation so I just decided to eat whatever I wanted. It's taken me 2 months to get back on track because the carb binge undid months of keto for me (gained 10 lbs in 2 months too). I tried to go to a paleo program that included more fruits and starchy veges (and no dairy) and no tracking but I still ate tons of food. It's clear to me that keto was my best weapon and so I've restarted this week and have had no problems staying at a deficit again.
0 -
To simplify it for people who think that CICO is the ONLY thing that matters when changing their body
What are you responding to? My oversimplification of CICO? No one ever said eat twinkies or steak. Just that body comp is affected by types of food, which in turn manipulates BMR, which can HELP create or slow weight/body fat losshttp://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
Who has ever recommended eating this way?
No one would ever do this. It's ridiculous.
And neither of which would be a healthy diet.
no one ever said eat twinkies vs steak, yet you used it as a valid comparison point....
if you agree no one eats that way, then why even bring it up???
OK, I agree with you that macros/micros matter for body recomp....
Again, my op was just about why some low carb types tend to deny CICO works for them...
When I used VLCD to cut, I didn't count cals though. No way I could eat more than 2300-2700cal of meat in a day lol
dude, that would be brutal....0 -
I am going to throw this one out there, because I got into a debate with someone in another thread and it left me pretty mind blown. The persons basic assumptions where the following:
1. they were not calorie restricting (however they were losing weight)
2. if they ate 1200 calories of a regular diet of say 30% carbs they did not lose, but when they ate a 1200 calories "low carb" diet they lost weight.
3. throughout the course of the thread others came in and made the argument that CICO did not apply when was going low carb.
Before all my low carb friends come flying in here to say that I am knocking low carb, let me be clear that is not what I am doing. The way that I see it is that low carb, IIFYM, keto, IF, etc are just tools to get one into a calorie deficit, and one is not superior to the other. I just get mind blown when people say "I calorie restricted and lost nothing, but when I went low carb I lost" or "fat loss only happens when one is low carb" or "CICO does not apply to me and only low carb works for me" and on and on….
I actually tried low carb and it was not for me. My energy in the gym was non-existent and i would end up binging on whatever carbs I had in the house.
It would be nice if some low carbers came in here and acutely refuted this…
OR
if you really believe that CICO does not apply, then I would be curious as to why you think this…
ETA - I am not referring to people that have to low carb due to a medical condition. However, CICO would still apply in that instance….
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am medically unable to deal with carbs. Previously I dieted for a long time and couldn't lose unless I dropped below 1200. Once I saw a Dr and got properly medicated the weight flew off. I will never be able to eat a lot of grams of carbs. I also don't believe that fat makes you fat. Read Gary Taubes. I am still mindful of calories in the sense that I need enough, but I can finally lose while eating more than 1200 cal.
*sigh*-1 -
Onlythetruth wrote: »Counting calories is easier said than done for most people. It works, but only if you have the discipline to do it. Most fail (as most fail with every type of diet). So avoiding temptations like Doritos is very helpful. So for me and many, LCHF is the way to go.
I have philosophical issues with focusing on banning foods--it seems more psychologically healthy to me and more apt to work over time to work on the self-control aspects, because situations will arise where you are tempted, and you need to be able to deal (and should be able to have a piece of pie from time to time without eating the whole thing). But this is really a separate issue, so we should probably set it aside for now.
What strikes me is that avoiding temptation is really not a particular reason to cut carbs except that your temptations seem to typically include them. I don't like potato chips, but sure, give me really good fries and I might be tempted to overeat. But the same is true of some cheese. Eliminating carbs doesn't really solve that issue--not unless it just happens to eliminate your trigger foods--and for me would also eliminate some foods I never overeat, like roasted potatoes or ice cream.
If it's being used as just a trick, an added excuse to give yourself for why you shouldn't eat "junk food," my thought is that it's like the poster who was complaining that her fat allowance was too high because she could still eat McDonald's. The macros are broad categories. Decisions about what foods specifically you eat or what you keep in your house are separate. I don't low carb, but I also don't eat McDonald's (not saying that anyone else should make this decision)--I didn't need to go low carb to be choosy about how I eat (or to avoid foods that seem not worth the calories or not to taste good to me).0 -
Onlythetruth wrote: »
I forget which Dorito brand it is, but there is one, if I'm hungry at night, could eat the entire bag, which has something like seven servings or 1,000 calories.
A 255g bag of doritos Sweet Chili Heat comes in at 1440 calories.0 -
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
How many of those studies matched protein intake? I am guessing NONE
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652
0 -
Wow....didn't read this whole thread.
OP - A lot of LCHF acknowledge CICO. Sorry you only focus on those that don't. Sounds like you're just looking to pick a fight or maybe you should rephrase your title.
Reading some of these posts a lot of people make assumptions about LCHF and just make judgements on that. How about instead of talking about something you don't have a clue about you just don't respond? Or at least double check your info before you do. Such as the claim that people who eat LCHF get full because of the volume of food they eat. No, the exact opposite is true. Have you seen how little cheese you get for 100 calories vs cereal/apples/lettuce?
LCHF eaters may eat a lot of meat HOWEVER that would also mean getting higher amount of protein than will fit your ratios. Its low carb, high fat, moderate protein. Not high protein (which many assume). Also, when low carbing I eat a lot more veggies than I would otherwise. That is where the bulk of the carbs are coming from. Many people who low carb, or at least what I feel like I see, are people that start off ONLY counting carbs, not realizing they are also cutting calories. Then as they get more comfortable with the WOE, they may transition to focusing on total calories and their macro ratios. I feel like on the LCHF forums there is a lot less talk about total carbs per day as there are about questions regarding people's ratios. You just don't see those posts that often on the regular forums.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions