why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
You don't low carb, do you? From what you said before I thought you did what I did (until recently), eat a somewhat lower percentage of carbs than the MFP default goal--for me it was about 35-40%, which was kind of low (nowhere near keto, though) when I was doing 1250, but isn't particularly low when I'm at 1800.
But also I see comments all the time from low carb people (generally not in this thread, though) that suggest or at least seem to suggest that if someone isn't doing low carb they are struggling with hunger or not satiated. That's why I keep saying that low carb is neither bad nor good inherently, but depends on the person, and that it's helpful for people who feel hungry or non satiated on a more standard macro mix, but that for many or most dieters that's not the issue. Being non-satiated (vs. sometimes wanting to eat because I like to eat or use food for comfort) has never, ever been my problem on a diet, as I know how to eat in a way that makes me satiated, and that's not low carb. In fact, I find many carbs quite satiating (like potatoes). I've definitely been in discussions on MFP where people insisted that pasta or potatoes could not be satiating, without limiting that to their own individual responses.
I do think that ON AVERAGE fat and protein is more satiating to people than refined carbs (fiber probably makes a difference) and probably even than carbs in general, but like with things like when you eat that still doesn't say anything about the results for any individual, so I say everyone should experiment for themselves.
I do suspect a lot of the arguments on this topic are just about people misreading each other, and am not saying I'm immune.
I don't, currently, no, and I agree, it may not have the same satiating effect for everyone.
Just pointing out that that person was responding to an argument no one was making.
It was implied, and is normally implied when talking with low carbers0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I know it will require people to buy the book but what got me into LCHF was "the art and science of low carbohydrate performance" buy it on a kindle for 10$. Most of the book points to the fact we can run on very little carbs and perform just as well as if we were on them. A one/two week phase is needed to get started. Think like cutting coffee out. Your body hates you but after a while it was just a habit. I look at our body's as has tanks the amount of fat and carbs we can hold. From the book, please excuse the lack of exact data, we can store up to 2000 calories of carbs. Whereas fat can be stored in the 10000s. Why not learn to use that instead? Following a keto diet allows the fat to burn and consume the energy we are carrying around our waist/hips/arms etc.
Because fruit is good and healthy...because legumes are good and healthy...because whole grains are awesome and healthy...because sweet potatoes and potatoes kick *kitten*....and because you can simply burn that fat by eating a balanced and healthy diet and simply consuming less calories than your body requires.
This is what really irks me about keto folk...you all act like the only way you're going to use fat as fuel and burn that fat off your body is if you're keto...I don't know why you all act like this when you're so obviously wrong as evidenced by the *kitten* load of fit and trim and healthy people not doing keto....
See again, there are those assumptions that "all act like this".
The way people get to a calorie deficit for some people is to eat LCHF Who are you to determine how they get to a calorie deficit? Great that works for you, but it doesn't work for everybody.
ummm he was quoting someone that made that claim ...
or did you miss that part...
I do see that but again, from one person with one post. But then it turns into everybody who eats keto.
so he can't debate with the person saying that because it offends your sensibilities...???
you really need to chill out ...0 -
Once you ditch the processed carbs, grains, sugar, alcohol and even dairy, it is really hard to even get above 80 grams of carbs a day. At that point you have eliminated the biggest sources of calories in the standard american diet. AND you are eating foods that reduce appetite - PROTEIN.
No, it's really not (although why would one make these cuts if not trying to go low carb anyway). I'm not sure what you are calling "processed," but I went without grains or added sugar in January and was easily well over 100 grams every day. I could have been stricter with my diet and gotten to a higher carb number if that had been an interest of mine.
I agree with you that for many people who get a lot of their calories from carbs cutting carbs results in cutting calories, but I suspect that it becomes harder to maintain over time if you are able to truly get over being scared of fat. My calories would have jumped if I'd stopped worrying about portion size with higher calorie meats (various cuts of beef and lamb, pulled pork, bacon from the farm--all stuff I make at home) and especially if I'd stopped being sparing with butter and oil and cheese and avocado, etc. I know this, because it's directly related to how I started gaining weight in the first place.
In a way low carb and paleo also work to reduce people's calories because for many it means you have to eat foods you cook, and if you are hungry at 10 pm it takes a lot more work (usually work you will decide against) to make a snack from scratch than open a bag of something, so you just have some fruit or nuts if they happen to be on hand or wait until the next day. I achieved this same effect simply because I prefer to cook my food and generally don't snack--macro mix seems irrelevant.
0 -
MrCoolGrim wrote: »Once you ditch the processed carbs, grains, sugar, alcohol and even dairy, it is really hard to even get above 80 grams of carbs a day. At that point you have eliminated the biggest sources of calories in the standard american diet. AND you are eating foods that reduce appetite - PROTEIN. Many low carb dieters have a hard time being convinced that they are eating LESS calories, but it is automatic. I eat a Paleo diet (I personally hate that label, but there it is) and when I tracked my calories after a week, I was still calorie restricted, I just didn't feel hungry. I was actually eating almost exactly the same number of calories as before I made changes. I don't consider how I eat low-carb - it's definitely not keto.
After over a year, I now have to track macros/calories consumed or I do not see results. I lost 30 lbs. CICO and another 20 with paleo - no tracking at all. In the end you still need to restrict calories, some methods make it easier than others.
Normally a low carb diet means an increase in protein
I suspect it wouldn't for many here. I'm thinking low carb means about 5% carbs, 70% fat, 25% protein or something like that. The most common breakdown on MFP is probably 30-30-40, and second is whatever the default is (I think 25-25-50).0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Anyone who cares about their diet is going to have a diet that looks a lot different than the SAD...you don't have to low carb. My diary is open...my nutritional profile is outstanding and a far cry from the SAD, and I don't low carb at all.
Simply having a balanced diet is going to be a far cry from the SAD. To me, the comment:And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Implies that carbs = SAD = junk. There are a whole lot of highly nutritious carbs out there that aren't "junk"...carbs go well beyond 40 ounce Big Gulps.
I never once said junk. Never once.
I didn't say that you said it...it would appear to be implied in the statement and it's an implication that is made often by low carbers...I know a few personally, and they all think carbs are satan...they all think carbs are killing people...they're nutty.
It's ok...I'll enjoy my legumes and my whole grain oats and my brown rice and my potatoes and sweet potatoes and my fruit and my copious amounts of daily vegetables and I'll be happy.
you are so defensive when it comes to low carbers... in every thread. just relax. not everyone is out to call carbs junk or satan.
my body doesn't take well to them. doesn't make them bad for everyone. i know that. you don't want people to say all carbs are bad but you usually come in insinuating that all low carbers are...
i enjoy sweet potatoes, fruit, legumes, and vegetables, too.
I've been around here for over 2.5 years and frankly, low carbers and keto folks in general are the preachiest of the bunch...
Not to mention, I"m pretty active in the fitness community and industry in general and I'm actually witnessing dill hole trainers and the like telling their clients not to eat sweet peas for example...'cuz carbs. It's hard not to be a little defensive when derp is this abundant...
I'm just an old fashioned guys I guess...I simply believe in eating a balanced and varied diet that is rich in nutrition...guess that's just not cool and apparently I'm going to die from sweet peas now...
0 -
Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
no thanks..
I like to lift heavy things and put them back down..if I went low carb my gym performance would go in the crapper...
I am glad it works for people; however an intake that hits macros/micros/calorie goals will work just as well. One is not superior to the other...
0 -
I actually feel bad for the sensible Low Carbers on MFP sometimes. They come in, all rational with their, "it's the way to make CICO work best for me" or their, "of course, I have a particular medical concern that makes eating this way a priority...." and then some nut comes in and shouts over their sanity with the "THE REFINED SUGARZ WILL KILL YOU BULLETPROOF COFFEE 4 LYFE!!!!!" business and the result is....sigh.
It must be exhausting.0 -
I follow low carb when calorie restricting as this was DOES work better for me. HOWEVER, I still have to restrict calories. I have tried not counting calories and only worrying about macro's but to be honest, I didn't really lose that much weight. I eat 1200 calories a day and exercise when I can - I do not eat back exercise calories, as that gives me a little room if I do not measure everything during the day, I often do not weigh veggies. I am sure I do have a slower metabolism, as I can gain weight at 1500 calories - not funny!0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
You don't low carb, do you? From what you said before I thought you did what I did (until recently), eat a somewhat lower percentage of carbs than the MFP default goal--for me it was about 35-40%, which was kind of low (nowhere near keto, though) when I was doing 1250, but isn't particularly low when I'm at 1800.
But also I see comments all the time from low carb people (generally not in this thread, though) that suggest or at least seem to suggest that if someone isn't doing low carb they are struggling with hunger or not satiated. That's why I keep saying that low carb is neither bad nor good inherently, but depends on the person, and that it's helpful for people who feel hungry or non satiated on a more standard macro mix, but that for many or most dieters that's not the issue. Being non-satiated (vs. sometimes wanting to eat because I like to eat or use food for comfort) has never, ever been my problem on a diet, as I know how to eat in a way that makes me satiated, and that's not low carb. In fact, I find many carbs quite satiating (like potatoes). I've definitely been in discussions on MFP where people insisted that pasta or potatoes could not be satiating, without limiting that to their own individual responses.
I do think that ON AVERAGE fat and protein is more satiating to people than refined carbs (fiber probably makes a difference) and probably even than carbs in general, but like with things like when you eat that still doesn't say anything about the results for any individual, so I say everyone should experiment for themselves.
I do suspect a lot of the arguments on this topic are just about people misreading each other, and am not saying I'm immune.
I don't, currently, no, and I agree, it may not have the same satiating effect for everyone.
Just pointing out that that person was responding to an argument no one was making.
It was implied, and is normally implied when talking with low carbers
You seem very sensitive. Have a break & eat a pork chop or summink.0 -
beccyleigh wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
You don't low carb, do you? From what you said before I thought you did what I did (until recently), eat a somewhat lower percentage of carbs than the MFP default goal--for me it was about 35-40%, which was kind of low (nowhere near keto, though) when I was doing 1250, but isn't particularly low when I'm at 1800.
But also I see comments all the time from low carb people (generally not in this thread, though) that suggest or at least seem to suggest that if someone isn't doing low carb they are struggling with hunger or not satiated. That's why I keep saying that low carb is neither bad nor good inherently, but depends on the person, and that it's helpful for people who feel hungry or non satiated on a more standard macro mix, but that for many or most dieters that's not the issue. Being non-satiated (vs. sometimes wanting to eat because I like to eat or use food for comfort) has never, ever been my problem on a diet, as I know how to eat in a way that makes me satiated, and that's not low carb. In fact, I find many carbs quite satiating (like potatoes). I've definitely been in discussions on MFP where people insisted that pasta or potatoes could not be satiating, without limiting that to their own individual responses.
I do think that ON AVERAGE fat and protein is more satiating to people than refined carbs (fiber probably makes a difference) and probably even than carbs in general, but like with things like when you eat that still doesn't say anything about the results for any individual, so I say everyone should experiment for themselves.
I do suspect a lot of the arguments on this topic are just about people misreading each other, and am not saying I'm immune.
I don't, currently, no, and I agree, it may not have the same satiating effect for everyone.
Just pointing out that that person was responding to an argument no one was making.
It was implied, and is normally implied when talking with low carbers
You seem very sensitive. Have a break & eat a pork chop or summink.
HUH???
0 -
I actually feel bad for the sensible Low Carbers on MFP sometimes. They come in, all rational with their, "it's the way to make CICO work best for me" or their, "of course, I have a particular medical concern that makes eating this way a priority...." and then some nut comes in and shouts over their sanity with the "THE REFINED SUGARZ WILL KILL YOU BULLETPROOF COFFEE 4 LYFE!!!!!" business and the result is....sigh.
It must be exhausting.
I agree ...
however, it is probably the same feeling that some of us get when the clean eaters say that moderation is all about eating 2000 calories of twinkies all the time...0 -
@lemurcat12 That is my frustration that people are making assumptions on those that are newbies, whether one or off MFP, to low carb.
I don't know if its for everybody who started eating low carb and has made it long term, but I would have insisted cutting carbs was the answer. It wasn't until I started using MFP and tracking and reading that I saw what was happening. It was a learning process and a lot of that happened in the low carb forums, not on the regular forums.0 -
beccyleigh wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
You don't low carb, do you? From what you said before I thought you did what I did (until recently), eat a somewhat lower percentage of carbs than the MFP default goal--for me it was about 35-40%, which was kind of low (nowhere near keto, though) when I was doing 1250, but isn't particularly low when I'm at 1800.
But also I see comments all the time from low carb people (generally not in this thread, though) that suggest or at least seem to suggest that if someone isn't doing low carb they are struggling with hunger or not satiated. That's why I keep saying that low carb is neither bad nor good inherently, but depends on the person, and that it's helpful for people who feel hungry or non satiated on a more standard macro mix, but that for many or most dieters that's not the issue. Being non-satiated (vs. sometimes wanting to eat because I like to eat or use food for comfort) has never, ever been my problem on a diet, as I know how to eat in a way that makes me satiated, and that's not low carb. In fact, I find many carbs quite satiating (like potatoes). I've definitely been in discussions on MFP where people insisted that pasta or potatoes could not be satiating, without limiting that to their own individual responses.
I do think that ON AVERAGE fat and protein is more satiating to people than refined carbs (fiber probably makes a difference) and probably even than carbs in general, but like with things like when you eat that still doesn't say anything about the results for any individual, so I say everyone should experiment for themselves.
I do suspect a lot of the arguments on this topic are just about people misreading each other, and am not saying I'm immune.
I don't, currently, no, and I agree, it may not have the same satiating effect for everyone.
Just pointing out that that person was responding to an argument no one was making.
It was implied, and is normally implied when talking with low carbers
You seem very sensitive. Have a break & eat a pork chop or summink.
HUH???
I'm right with you. What is that poster talking about?0 -
I suppose the only question you need to ask yourself is "Is what I am doing, working for me?" If the answer is yes give no *kitten* what other people do. It seems to get some of you all twisted in your knickers over other peoples decisions. Chill. Pill.
And if what you are doing isn't working, then find something else.0 -
beccyleigh wrote: »I suppose the only question you need to ask yourself is "Is what I am doing, working for me?" If the answer is yes give no *kitten* what other people do. It seems to get some of you all twisted in your knickers over other peoples decisions. Chill. Pill.
And if what you are doing isn't working, then find something else.
you seem to have your knickers pretty twisted up right about now...0 -
conniechappell wrote: »So a couple of years ago I decided to give a high-protein regimen a try--the requirement was NOT that I restrict carbs per se, but rather than I aim for a particular target number of protein grams and a particular target number of net calories. The end result was that I was eating a pretty low-carb diet. MUCH easier to stick with the calorie target when I focused on keeping those protein grams at a particular level. If my calorie count goes up for the day, due to increased exercise, decreased focus on weight loss, or whatever, I tend to add back in more carbs to make up the caloric additions, and I will still lose weight at my targeted/expected rate. Keeping the protein grams at a particular minimum level at all times (which translates to what is essentially a "low carb" diet during periods of caloric restriction) seems to be the key for me to stick with a program with much less effort/willpower. I haven't ever "restricted carbs" per se, but by default I am sometimes heavily restricting carbs if I am not exercising much, trying to lose weight, and trying to maintain a certain number of grams of protein...so it seems to me that "carb restriction" is sort of approaching the problem backwards, but it does sort of get you to the same result as far as what you're eating.
Interesting. I'm wondering what macro targets you are thinking of here.
When I started I was on pretty low calories (1250) and did about 110 grams of protein, I think (35%), which is more than I think is reasonably necessary for someone of my size (although that much or more works for me because I love lots of protein-containing foods), with 30% fat and 35% carbs--that's kind of just how it naturally broke down when I started focusing on getting in my protein and cutting out foods that didn't seem to have the bang for the buck according to my taste preferences. But I wouldn't find more protein than that helpful (although I eat more now because I have more calories) and wouldn't consider that either high protein or low carb. Thus, I'm just curious how people are defining their terms.
I also agree with you pointing at that some of this is a function of calories. I've raised my calories by a lot (I'm trying to ease up into maintenance level), and at 1800 and above I had to raise my carbs percentage because I don't want more than say 125 grams of protein as a goal (I'm 125 lbs), and I seem to feel best at about 50-60 grams of fat, which left me back at about 50% carbs. (Also I find that if I'm more active--as I am when I have a higher TDEE, especially since I do a lot of cardio stuff--I naturally tend to want more carbs.)
0 -
beccyleigh wrote: »I suppose the only question you need to ask yourself is "Is what I am doing, working for me?" If the answer is yes give no *kitten* what other people do. It seems to get some of you all twisted in your knickers over other peoples decisions. Chill. Pill.
And if what you are doing isn't working, then find something else.
you seem to have your knickers pretty twisted up right about now...
I'm not wearing any love.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Anyone who cares about their diet is going to have a diet that looks a lot different than the SAD...you don't have to low carb. My diary is open...my nutritional profile is outstanding and a far cry from the SAD, and I don't low carb at all.
Simply having a balanced diet is going to be a far cry from the SAD. To me, the comment:And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Implies that carbs = SAD = junk. There are a whole lot of highly nutritious carbs out there that aren't "junk"...carbs go well beyond 40 ounce Big Gulps.
I never once said junk. Never once.
I didn't say that you said it...it would appear to be implied in the statement and it's an implication that is made often by low carbers...I know a few personally, and they all think carbs are satan...they all think carbs are killing people...they're nutty.
It's ok...I'll enjoy my legumes and my whole grain oats and my brown rice and my potatoes and sweet potatoes and my fruit and my copious amounts of daily vegetables and I'll be happy.
you are so defensive when it comes to low carbers... in every thread. just relax. not everyone is out to call carbs junk or satan.
my body doesn't take well to them. doesn't make them bad for everyone. i know that. you don't want people to say all carbs are bad but you usually come in insinuating that all low carbers are...
i enjoy sweet potatoes, fruit, legumes, and vegetables, too.
I've been around here for over 2.5 years and frankly, low carbers and keto folks in general are the preachiest of the bunch...
Not to mention, I"m pretty active in the fitness community and industry in general and I'm actually witnessing dill hole trainers and the like telling their clients not to eat sweet peas for example...'cuz carbs. It's hard not to be a little defensive when derp is this abundant...
I'm just an old fashioned guys I guess...I simply believe in eating a balanced and varied diet that is rich in nutrition...guess that's just not cool and apparently I'm going to die from sweet peas now...
guy who hates preaching gets preachy0 -
beccyleigh wrote: »I suppose the only question you need to ask yourself is "Is what I am doing, working for me?" If the answer is yes give no *kitten* what other people do. It seems to get some of you all twisted in your knickers over other peoples decisions. Chill. Pill.
And if what you are doing isn't working, then find something else.
Hmm so educating people on what not needs to be done is a problem?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions