why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
RockstarWilson 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
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
Anti science from a low carber? Who'd a thunk0 -
My general perception is there are a lot of people out there who think they counted calories but either (a) don't have an accurate perception of serving size or (b) have blind spots and poor accounting of their daily calories.
I find even using My Fitness Pal, if I'm not diligent about measuring and entering food right away, it's really easy to enter 1/2 cup of grapes when he it was closer to 1, or forget about that 120-calorie slice of cheddar I had in my tuna wrap.
As to the discussion here, it's pretty dangerous to call out others for diet heresy. You don't know their health situation. You're not a doctor. I don't believe CICO is the only legitimate way of losing weight, but I do think it's the most practical and easy to understand. OTOH, I think if you're diabetic or have heart ailments, there are higher diet priorities than mere calories to consider, and chasing a diet that leans towards something unbalanced could do more harm to health than weight gain. What's a little ironic is my father has both diabetes and heart problems, and CICO is the ONLY way he can manage his weight; high-fat content can impair him and high-carb content sends his sugar through the roof. He's given virtually everything a legitimate shot only to end up at his doctor or in the hospital. I am suspicious of anyone who thinks there's One True Diet for everyone.
Science! Not everyone gets it
0 -
My general perception is there are a lot of people out there who think they counted calories but either (a) don't have an accurate perception of serving size or (b) have blind spots and poor accounting of their daily calories.
I find even using My Fitness Pal, if I'm not diligent about measuring and entering food right away, it's really easy to enter 1/2 cup of grapes when he it was closer to 1, or forget about that 120-calorie slice of cheddar I had in my tuna wrap.
As to the discussion here, it's pretty dangerous to call out others for diet heresy. You don't know their health situation. You're not a doctor. I don't believe CICO is the only legitimate way of losing weight, but I do think it's the most practical and easy to understand. OTOH, I think if you're diabetic or have heart ailments, there are higher diet priorities than mere calories to consider, and chasing a diet that leans towards something unbalanced could do more harm to health than weight gain. What's a little ironic is my father has both diabetes and heart problems, and CICO is the ONLY way he can manage his weight; high-fat content can impair him and high-carb content sends his sugar through the roof. He's given virtually everything a legitimate shot only to end up at his doctor or in the hospital. I am suspicious of anyone who thinks there's One True Diet for everyone.
please tell me what other way there is to lose weight besides CICO???
i honestly don't think some people have a true understanding of what cico actually means..0 -
This content has been removed.
-
There are studies that show it's not the quantity of calories but the quality. Dr. Hyman and Dr. Gray (Wheat Belly) are proof of this. Plus, here's a conundrum if you believe calories in calories out: when cows were fed a high-fat diet of coconut oil, they LOST weight. Ranchers thought that would be a cheap way to fatten them up, but it had the opposite effect.
Fat (which a lot of low carbers tout) helps you feel full, helps your bathroom habit, keeps hair and skin healthy, and helps brain function. Brain runs almost entirely off fat.
I've found that a lower-carb diet helps me lose weight. I eat healthy fats, but in reasonable quantities. But I listen to my body; if it is craving carbs I will fix a healthy low GI carb (sweet potato, beans, ...) at the next meal.
There are a lot of things we don't know about how our bodies use food. I don't discount anything that works for anyone.
No it does not. Even in ketosis the brain will still use glucose. Stop listening to pseudoscience
From the Ketogenic Diet book pg.21
"The fact that the brain is incapable of using FFA for fuel has led to one of the biggest
misconceptions about human physiology: that the brain can only use glucose for fuel. While it is true that the brain normally runs on glucose, the brain will readily use ketones for fuel if they are
available (4-6).
Arguably the most important tissue in terms of ketone utilization is the brain which can
derive up to 75% of its total energy requirements from ketones after adaptation (4-6). In all
likelihood, ketones exist primarily to provide a fat-derived fuel for the brain during periods when carbohydrates are unavailable (2,7)."
pg.28
"A second function of ketones is as a fuel for most other tissues in the body. By shifting the
entire body’s metabolism from glucose to fat, what glucose is available is conserved for use by the brain"
0 -
RockstarWilson 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
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
What are you trying to say here?
I can't feel full because I don't wait 8-16 hours between meals?0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »My general perception is there are a lot of people out there who think they counted calories but either (a) don't have an accurate perception of serving size or (b) have blind spots and poor accounting of their daily calories.
I find even using My Fitness Pal, if I'm not diligent about measuring and entering food right away, it's really easy to enter 1/2 cup of grapes when he it was closer to 1, or forget about that 120-calorie slice of cheddar I had in my tuna wrap.
As to the discussion here, it's pretty dangerous to call out others for diet heresy. You don't know their health situation. You're not a doctor. I don't believe CICO is the only legitimate way of losing weight, but I do think it's the most practical and easy to understand. OTOH, I think if you're diabetic or have heart ailments, there are higher diet priorities than mere calories to consider, and chasing a diet that leans towards something unbalanced could do more harm to health than weight gain. What's a little ironic is my father has both diabetes and heart problems, and CICO is the ONLY way he can manage his weight; high-fat content can impair him and high-carb content sends his sugar through the roof. He's given virtually everything a legitimate shot only to end up at his doctor or in the hospital. I am suspicious of anyone who thinks there's One True Diet for everyone.
please tell me what other way there is to lose weight besides CICO???
tagged @gaddabout because I want to hear this answer too.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
blktngldhrt wrote: »My general perception is there are a lot of people out there who think they counted calories but either (a) don't have an accurate perception of serving size or (b) have blind spots and poor accounting of their daily calories.
I find even using My Fitness Pal, if I'm not diligent about measuring and entering food right away, it's really easy to enter 1/2 cup of grapes when he it was closer to 1, or forget about that 120-calorie slice of cheddar I had in my tuna wrap.
As to the discussion here, it's pretty dangerous to call out others for diet heresy. You don't know their health situation. You're not a doctor. I don't believe CICO is the only legitimate way of losing weight, but I do think it's the most practical and easy to understand. OTOH, I think if you're diabetic or have heart ailments, there are higher diet priorities than mere calories to consider, and chasing a diet that leans towards something unbalanced could do more harm to health than weight gain. What's a little ironic is my father has both diabetes and heart problems, and CICO is the ONLY way he can manage his weight; high-fat content can impair him and high-carb content sends his sugar through the roof. He's given virtually everything a legitimate shot only to end up at his doctor or in the hospital. I am suspicious of anyone who thinks there's One True Diet for everyone.
please tell me what other way there is to lose weight besides CICO???
i honestly don't think some people have a true understanding of what cico actually means..
Calories In Calories Out 0 -
RockstarWilson 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
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
What are you trying to say here?
I can't feel full because I don't wait 8-16 hours between meals?
Lol sorry you're legit cracking me up, you can be full, no one's saying you can't be full, lololol - you are full
lolol
0 -
RockstarWilson 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
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
What are you trying to say here?
I can't feel full because I don't wait 8-16 hours between meals?
Lol sorry you're legit cracking me up, you can be full, no one's saying you can't be full, lololol - you are full lolol
My point.....Your missing it0 -
Onlythetruth wrote: »My general perception is there are a lot of people out there who think they counted calories but either (a) don't have an accurate perception of serving size or (b) have blind spots and poor accounting of their daily calories.
I find even using My Fitness Pal, if I'm not diligent about measuring and entering food right away, it's really easy to enter 1/2 cup of grapes when he it was closer to 1, or forget about that 120-calorie slice of cheddar I had in my tuna wrap.
As to the discussion here, it's pretty dangerous to call out others for diet heresy. You don't know their health situation. You're not a doctor. I don't believe CICO is the only legitimate way of losing weight, but I do think it's the most practical and easy to understand. OTOH, I think if you're diabetic or have heart ailments, there are higher diet priorities than mere calories to consider, and chasing a diet that leans towards something unbalanced could do more harm to health than weight gain. What's a little ironic is my father has both diabetes and heart problems, and CICO is the ONLY way he can manage his weight; high-fat content can impair him and high-carb content sends his sugar through the roof. He's given virtually everything a legitimate shot only to end up at his doctor or in the hospital. I am suspicious of anyone who thinks there's One True Diet for everyone.
please tell me what other way there is to lose weight besides CICO???
Correct. But most people who lose weight don't count them. If you can count them that's great. But if you can't, get educated, read labels, and use common sense (like have one or two pieces of bread at the restaurant instead of six; share the desert instead of ordering two deserts).
What your little example shows is a way of making a calorie deficit. Even better if before you would always eat 6 pieces of bread. Save calories already on bread alone.0 -
RockstarWilson 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
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
What are you trying to say here?
I can't feel full because I don't wait 8-16 hours between meals?
Lol sorry you're legit cracking me up, you can be full, no one's saying you can't be full, lololol - you are full lolol
My point.....Your missing it
your point was that an argument no one made is false. you said people 'implied' things, but that's not true. people talked about their own experiences, and some people referred to some research that supported an idea. if anyone said you can't be full, i missed it. (lololol i don't know why i find this hilarious, sorry, nothing against you)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...
That is so dumb. Everyone knows we eat 2000 calories of ice cream.
Except on Sundays. Sundays are now Peep Cleanse Day.
Wrong- sundays are YELLOW peep cleanse day-- don't forget he said it was only yellow peeps that did the cleansing!
Darn it, you're right.
My apologies, I'm new to the Peep lifestyle.0 -
Onlythetruth wrote: »My general perception is there are a lot of people out there who think they counted calories but either (a) don't have an accurate perception of serving size or (b) have blind spots and poor accounting of their daily calories.
I find even using My Fitness Pal, if I'm not diligent about measuring and entering food right away, it's really easy to enter 1/2 cup of grapes when he it was closer to 1, or forget about that 120-calorie slice of cheddar I had in my tuna wrap.
As to the discussion here, it's pretty dangerous to call out others for diet heresy. You don't know their health situation. You're not a doctor. I don't believe CICO is the only legitimate way of losing weight, but I do think it's the most practical and easy to understand. OTOH, I think if you're diabetic or have heart ailments, there are higher diet priorities than mere calories to consider, and chasing a diet that leans towards something unbalanced could do more harm to health than weight gain. What's a little ironic is my father has both diabetes and heart problems, and CICO is the ONLY way he can manage his weight; high-fat content can impair him and high-carb content sends his sugar through the roof. He's given virtually everything a legitimate shot only to end up at his doctor or in the hospital. I am suspicious of anyone who thinks there's One True Diet for everyone.
please tell me what other way there is to lose weight besides CICO???
Correct. But most people who lose weight don't count them. If you can count them that's great. But if you can't, get educated, read labels, and use common sense (like have one or two pieces of bread at the restaurant instead of six; share the desert instead of ordering two deserts).
CICO is not calorie counting.
CICO = calories in vs calories out
calorie counting, low carb, IF, keto, IIFYM, etc are tools to get you into a deficit, surplus, or maintenance...
so again what else is there besides CICO?
0 -
Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
You aren't discussing the topic here.I've also dumped cereal because the amount I need to eat for breakfast is 2.5 times the serving suggested on the box. My breakfast "diet food" is one egg, a strip of bacon, and some grilled onions.
Mine is a two egg vegetable omelet with fruit, and cottage cheese or yogurt, usually. Sometimes I have smoked salmon instead of the dairy. I never ate cereal because I can't stand cold cereal, and I don't eat oatmeal without adding some protein or fat to make it filling, but obviously some people find oatmeal filling. Again, not sure what this has to do with anything. YOU were the one who make general claims and not just claims about what worked for you, remember.I could care less about balanced macros. My grandparents lived past 90 at the right weight without knowing their balanced macros. But they ate good food, and had no junk in the house.
So are you claiming carbs=junk or have you just admitted this has nothing to do with LCHF or low carb, as I said originally?
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.
Wait... whoever said that the only two options are LCHF and HCLF?
0 -
RockstarWilson 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
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
What are you trying to say here?
I can't feel full because I don't wait 8-16 hours between meals?
Lol sorry you're legit cracking me up, you can be full, no one's saying you can't be full, lololol - you are full lolol
My point.....Your missing it
your point was that an argument no one made is false. you said people 'implied' things, but that's not true. people talked about their own experiences, and some people referred to some research that supported an idea. if anyone said you can't be full, i missed it. (lololol i don't know why i find this hilarious, sorry, nothing against you)
(I think it's because of the expression you've got in your profile pic combined with the repeated statement. Or lack of sleep. Anyway not personal, sorry, just me being weird)0 -
RockstarWilson 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
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
What are you trying to say here?
I can't feel full because I don't wait 8-16 hours between meals?
Lol sorry you're legit cracking me up, you can be full, no one's saying you can't be full, lololol - you are full lolol
My point.....Your missing it
Or perhaps you're not making it.
:drinker:
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Wait... whoever said that the only two options are LCHF and HCLF?
I hear MCMFMP can also work....0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »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 preachy
Yup...someone's gotta fight the power...
Srsly can't wait for this derp to just go away...
have you seen idiocracy? i don't think the derp is going anywhere.
bahahahaha idiocracy that movie rocks...
plants need Gatorade...!!0 -
This is a semantical question and not very charitable towards what I posted. Low-carb or low-fat diets are engineered towards behaviors, usually for people who a have a logical disconnect between how many calories they eat and their weight. I suspect it's usually an emotional dysfunction, but I'm not a psychologist and I don't know everyone. Of course people lose weight because they take in fewer calories than they consume, but for whatever reason, they need to count something else or believe in something else that produces those results.
I'm clearly in your camp -- the bottomline/CICO camp. But I'm perfectly fine with a certain amount of delusion if it means a mother or father gets 20 more years with their children/grandchildren (or insert your favorite emotional ploy here). I'm not going to try and correct them (although I am clearly advocating patronizing them here ... whatever works for you).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »@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.
Perhaps you are a sensible one and if you are I apologize if I offend, but honestly you would be one of the few. I am very active in the fitness community and industry at large, and by and large the current prevailing derp is that indeed carbs are the devil. I'm literally seeing trainers at my gym tell clients not to eat things like sweet peas or carrots...it's stupid...and it's rampant derp, it's not just a few newbs on MFP.
Hell, if it wasn't so rampant you wouldn't have threads and posts asking if potatoes are "good" or "bad"...it's a flippin' whole food.
For those that are claiming carbs come from the devil, they may NEVER make that transition to acknowledging that it is just a tool or a way to cut calories. Or that there is something magic about low carb and that you can eat as much butter and sour cream as you want. Honestly, until I started using MFP I honestly thought it was cutting the carbs that was helping and never thought I was cutting my calories enough to lose the weight I did. It was a big "aha!" for me.
I truly do believe you are in the minority...and good on you.0 -
Onlythetruth wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
I've also dumped cereal because the amount I need to eat for breakfast is 2.5 times the serving suggested on the box. My breakfast "diet food" is one egg, a strip of bacon, and some grilled onions.
I could care less about balanced macros. My grandparents lived past 90 at the right weight without knowing their balanced macros. But they ate good food, and had no junk in the house.
PS - I get most of my carbs from fruit and vegetables.
What are your ratios if you eat fruit then? Fruit has sugar?
The sugar I'm getting from fruit is a lot less than the sugar I was getting from cookies and ice cream.
It's entirely possible to control the amount of cookies and ice cream you eat without being LCHF. In fact, amusingly enough, the majority of calories in both are probably from fat, so HCLF people probably aren't eating lots of either.
There's a lot less sugar in potatoes or oatmeal or whole wheat pasta, to pick three major sources of carbs I've had this week, than in fruit (which I've also had, also ice cream, for full disclosure, which I easily can eat a serving of). So not really sure why you are making the discussion about "sugar."
You also didn't answer the question Mel asked.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
I've also dumped cereal because the amount I need to eat for breakfast is 2.5 times the serving suggested on the box. My breakfast "diet food" is one egg, a strip of bacon, and some grilled onions.
I could care less about balanced macros. My grandparents lived past 90 at the right weight without knowing their balanced macros. But they ate good food, and had no junk in the house.
PS - I get most of my carbs from fruit and vegetables.
What are your ratios if you eat fruit then? Fruit has sugar?
The sugar I'm getting from fruit is a lot less than the sugar I was getting from cookies and ice cream.
It's entirely possible to control the amount of cookies and ice cream you eat without being LCHF.
It's entirely possible to do all kinds of things. That's not the point - and has never been the point.
If someone finds it easier to travel one road than another road, there is nothing wrong (and a whole lot right!) with them taking the easier road.
0 -
This is a semantical question and not very charitable towards what I posted. Low-carb or low-fat diets are engineered towards behaviors, usually for people who a have a logical disconnect between how many calories they eat and their weight. I suspect it's usually an emotional dysfunction, but I'm not a psychologist and I don't know everyone. Of course people lose weight because they take in fewer calories than they consume, but for whatever reason, they need to count something else or believe in something else that produces those results.
I'm clearly in your camp -- the bottomline/CICO camp. But I'm perfectly fine with a certain amount of delusion if it means a mother or father gets 20 more years with their children/grandchildren (or insert your favorite emotional ploy here). I'm not going to try and correct them (although I am clearly advocating patronizing them here ... whatever works for you).
you said CICO is not the only way....please tell me the other ways besides CICO??0 -
kamakazeekim wrote: »I have PCOS and when I tried just CICO I continued gaining weight. Once I was put on metformin and restricted carbs I lost weight like crazy even though my calorie intake actually went up. I realize the typical person without a hormone issue going on probably wouldn't have the same issues that I did.
you are still doing CICO ..you are just using medication to regulate the out side for you ..
I have PCOS and have been on Metformin for years. CICO did not work for me, while on the medication, and I gained weight while eating within my calorie range and working out. Even when varying the amount of exercise calories back or not eating them at all. I measure my food and don't eat junk either.
When I eat low carb I lose weight. My medication hasn't changed and my exercise hasn't changed either, the only thing that has changed is the restricting of carbohydrates. I still eat within my calorie range, still vary eating back my exercise calories, yet now I'm losing weight. For some of us, low carb eating is medically necessary and CICO will never work.
^^^ I have experienced this exact same thing. I think many PCOS'ers have which is why I am guessing the OP opted to say he wasn't talking about those with medical issues.
My experience was the exact same- I was doing calorie restriction- 1600 a day, let MFP set my macros for me, even researched TDEE and IIFYM calculators to see what my macros should be and set them by those. Was working out twice a week with a very good personal trainer and three times a week on my own- did not lose weight.
I also did CICO based on TDEE with a 500 cal cut (as recommended)- without working out while on metformin- did not lose weight.
Now- I am still sticking to my 1600 cals, on metformin and cut carbs as recommended by my doc and nutritionist and I am losing steadily- without exercise. The only difference is that now I am limiting my carbs to 30g a day. I am adding exercise now (just this week) because I want to build muscle. For some of us low carbers as @Babbs1977 says- CICO alone will never work
ARGH!... Just picking a nit!!!! CICO is working. I am picking a nit with your language. You're not the first poster to do this, so sorry for singling you out.
CICO is NOT a way of eating. It's an equation. Calories in, Calories Out. Colloquially, around here, it's used to mean mean putting that equation into practice so that it nets a deficit of energy.
The components of what make up those calories are NOT CICO.
CICO is working for you.... on a diet with its macros balanced to be low carb.
CICO is working for me... on a diet with its macros balanced to be moderate carb.
CICO works for other people on this thread with different macro balances.
Sorry, I just... there has to be a better way to to stop confusing IIFYM with CICO.
0 -
This is a semantical question and not very charitable towards what I posted. Low-carb or low-fat diets are engineered towards behaviors, usually for people who a have a logical disconnect between how many calories they eat and their weight. I suspect it's usually an emotional dysfunction, but I'm not a psychologist and I don't know everyone. Of course people lose weight because they take in fewer calories than they consume, but for whatever reason, they need to count something else or believe in something else that produces those results.
I'm clearly in your camp -- the bottomline/CICO camp. But I'm perfectly fine with a certain amount of delusion if it means a mother or father gets 20 more years with their children/grandchildren (or insert your favorite emotional ploy here). I'm not going to try and correct them (although I am clearly advocating patronizing them here ... whatever works for you).
you said CICO is not the only way....please tell me the other ways besides CICO??
LOL you see the white flag has been raise. If you can't beat'em join'em.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions