thoughts on low carb diets?
Replies
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »That gets lost around here when it's just about "weight" loss and calorie deficits. Not sustainable.
Please point to my comment that made it just about weight loss and calorie deficits.
Sigh.
This is what drives me nuts about low carb evangelism. I'm totally open to the idea that people are different and lower carbs work better for some, but the nutrition science currently does not support the idea that lower carb is healthier, let alone for everyone.
IMO, what makes a diet healthy or not is different from macro ratio, and the benefits of macro ratio tend to vary by person and what helps that person eat a nutritious diet.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »That gets lost around here when it's just about "weight" loss and calorie deficits. Not sustainable.
Please point to my comment that made it just about weight loss and calorie deficits.
Sigh.
I was responding and agreeing to his comment regardless of whether he was responding to you. I am saying that in general.0 -
.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »It was actually supposed to be supportive of trying low carb or other similar experiments, as people seem to commonly say that no one should reduce carbs unless they plan to eat that way for life.
I've not run across people saying such apparently crazy things, but no doubt they are out there.IMO, different carb levels may work at different times. But never mind.
I have provided one such short term event example where this is likely the case, so I agree with you in spirit at the very least.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
chloeelizabethm wrote: »I love low carb. I'm less hungry and don't feel like it's as restrictive as I expected - it definitely makes me be more imaginative with what I serve for dinner! Fibre is an issue though, illusive little thing.
^^^^THIS!!^^^^ I was already counting calories and sort of unintentionally started following a low carb diet because I decided to start eating a high protein diet so I don't have many calories left to "spend" on carbs.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is what drives me nuts about low carb evangelism. I'm totally open to the idea that people are different and lower carbs work better for some, but the nutrition science currently does not support the idea that lower carb is healthier, let alone for everyone.
I'm nuts about nuts but evangelising nothing.
I'm a proponent of lower carbs and better sources of carbs. I'm not a proponent of "low" carbs, because I can't define what low means. What's "low"? Low could probably be defined as the minimum (X) to maintain proper body function. I'm certainly not doing that for my own case nor would I promote that. What's high?
Subtract minimum carbs from 100% and then subtract the minimum fats and protein to maintain proper body function and you've got Z balance left. What factor of X-carbs to fill in that remaining balance remains healthy? 1.5 times? 2 times? 5 times? Is there any relationship?
I'd like to see what science supports high (50%? 60%?) or even moderate carbs (40%?) as being healthy in the average person over a lifetime.
The nutrition science that apparently has supported relatively high carbohydrate consumption in some modern societies over past decades seems more linked to the influence of industry and happen stance of a nation's agricultural production than actual science. SAD did not materialize because it was healthy. Eat your grains! Eat your grains!
Did science design this food pyramid (USDA 1992) or did industry influence play a role? I don't know the answer but would bet the latter.
6 to 11 servings?0 -
I am definitely in the pro "lower carb" camp. I'm aiming for 30 - 35% total but try not to eat any highly refined carbs... as much as possible at least. That means no plain ol' bread and very little bread at all over the course of a week. I think I had three slices this week after many weeks of zero. No bagels (and I used to live on bagels). No tortillas as a rule. I will have some whole grain multi-grain porridge once in a while. Carbs from vegetables are ok and fruits too but more veges than fruits.
Fats I let float wherever they will go; they are usually my biggest macro. This doesn't worry me as they are generally healthy fats.
I'm losing 2kg a week, and have been for quite some time. I'm not finding the reduced carbs gets in the way of my running (I'll run more than 200km this month). I feel satiated... full even and I don't crave carbs at all.
So far the mix is working very well for me.
200km a month is nothing to write home about as a runner. It is not even at a competitive (for a rec runner) level. A lot of the studies on LCHF diets and endurance seem to use a very low V02 max.0 -
200km a month is nothing to write home about as a runner. It is not even at a competitive (for a rec runner) level.
Given I started at being unable to run even 1km last September, I'm happy with my progression, thanks. I've been adding 20 - 40km a month the last few months, going by feel and I'll eventually get back to the volume I used to run in my twenties and thirties but I certainly won't be rushing things as injury that would sideline me is something I'm keen to avoid. My motivation is also quite a bit different now at 53 than it was then.A lot of the studies on LCHF diets and endurance seem to use a very low V02 max.
Low VO2 Max for who? An endurance athlete? A sprinter? A 20 year old? A 50 year old? Is this even relevant to the discussion?
And are we talking about "low carb high fat" diet here? Is a 33/33/33 c/f/p diet "low carb"? 40/30/30? I guess either might be called low carb if we are to believe 1992 USDA eating guidelines. Anything under 55% carbohydrates would appear to be low in that era.
My point in linking *my* lower carb diet to *my* running is not to debate performance of elite endurance athletes on LCHF diets but to pass on that *I* am not finding I need a bump up carbs for longer runs in the way I was trained or conditioned to by past habits. I don't know, yet, if that positive experience will carry on to a three hour run or a race pace run. But I'm going to find out.
I do know that I don't need the bagel I used to consume habitually before every training run of any length.
Of course a lot has changed. I'm 23 years older than when I last ran fast and long, and I'd never been heavy and out of shape before. It's a whole new world.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'd write post cards to random strangers to tell them about it.
LOL!
That's what I thought 65 pounds ago as it seemed like too steep a hill to climb at the time. It'll be much easier 40 pounds from now.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »This is what drives me nuts about low carb evangelism. I'm totally open to the idea that people are different and lower carbs work better for some, but the nutrition science currently does not support the idea that lower carb is healthier, let alone for everyone.
I'm nuts about nuts but evangelising nothing.
I'm a proponent of lower carbs and better sources of carbs. I'm not a proponent of "low" carbs, because I can't define what low means. What's "low"? Low could probably be defined as the minimum (X) to maintain proper body function. I'm certainly not doing that for my own case nor would I promote that. What's high?
Like I said, I think the evidence is that macro percentage doesn't matter much or at least has different effects to different people (and depending on the particular source of the carbs).
Continuing to argue about the SAD or the old pyramid isn't responsive to that.
Numerous traditional diets have carb percentages higher than the SAD (including heavier grain consumption than the current SAD, in all likelihood),* and plenty of people followed in the Nurses Study with higher carb diets do fine or even better than those with higher fat diets if you correct for source of carbs (and I'd say the same thing if someone were arguing that fat or sat fat is unhealthy, as I think the evidence there is inconclusive for the same reasons). I mentioned this before, and you ignored it and kept arguing that it's always better to have a lower carb percentage than the standard 50% or so.
However, I wasn't referring to you re the evangelism comment. Ted and I have had exchanges before.
*I happen to agree with you that the old generic pushing of grains in the pyramid was bad advice, and I am not so sold on whole grains as super healthy as some (although I'm not so skeptical about it as I used to be either, in large part due to traditional diets). I think the reason grains were the base of the pyramid, though, was primarily (a) cost; and (b) the difference in a society like ours where food is super abundant and we aren't so active and one in which getting enough calories was important. I often think about my grandfather who certainly ate more grains and other starchy carbs than I ever did (I'm actually not a carb nut, which is why I found cutting carbs an easy way to cut calories for a while), but who was never fat. He was also a farmer and quite active in his daily life, whereas I have a sedentary job. It's not surprising that my desire for carbs increases when I'm more active and have a higher TDEE also.0 -
I don't think weight has anything to do with it or at least little to do with it. It's strength and training IMO.
That might be the most ridiculous thing I've read today.
Tell you what: train for and run a marathon carrying 105 extra pounds strapped to you and see what your time is. Rest up a couple weeks and then run it again. Let us know what your time drops to.
Edit: If that is too difficult to imagine, picture yourself hiking 10 miles to your camp site with a 105 pound pack on your back. Next day, do it without. Which version of you gets to camp faster? Does with-pack you expend more energy getting there than with-out pack you? Where does that energy come from? Do you honestly believe you can train your body to match the speed of unladen you vs the speed of you 70 percent heavier?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »plenty of people followed in the Nurses Study with higher carb diets do fine or even better than those with higher fat diets if you correct for source of carbs
A curiosity that I'm wondering about: If you don't correct for source of proteins, those consuming the lowest % of carbohydrates, highest % of proteins, also happen to be smokers in significantly higher numbers (26% vs 17%) than those consuming the highest percentage of carbs. I'd be interested in seeing smokers filtered out to see what things look like.
Back to low-carb, doesn't the conclusion of the study say it all?CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and protein are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.
So no increased risk of CHD if adopting a low-carb diet with any mix of fats and proteins, and if choosing good fats and proteins, moderately lower risk of CHD.
Sounds good to me.
0 -
Back to low-carb, doesn't the conclusion of the study say it all?
You mean the Nurses Study? There are a ton of different analyses that have been done on that information, so no I don't think one conclusion of one of them says it all, of course not.
But all that says is that in women there's no increase in CHD from simply lowering carbs, which is completely consistent with what I've been saying, but does not suggest that having higher carbs is somehow inherently unhealthy or lower carbs inherently healthier--which is the position I've been arguing against.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I do low carb diet, but not now, not during exam period.
One thing I notice is it's harder to concentrate.0 -
Personally, I love low carb and the benefits. I get to lose weight by eating delicious food. I don't experience that carb coma after eating. I have more energy. But the thing with low carb is you have to make it a change in lifestyle. You can't expect to drop x amount of weight and revert back to your old eating habits and not gain weight back. Honestly, I don't really miss bread, rice, pasta, pizza, etc. But even when I'm thinking, "pizza sounds really good right now", there's a low carb option for that. Low carb works, end of story. I went from 240 lbs to my current 175. The hardest part is being around people who eat carbs. You tell them you can't have something because it's high in carbs. "Oh, you're allowed a cheat day". Yes I am, but it's not worth it to throw away a few days of hard work, and then feeling like *kitten* afterwards because you ate a carb loaded meal.0
-
Cutting calories works, and cutting carbs is one way to do that. Depending on the person, perhaps the best way for that particular person.
But many or most people don't feel bad at all after eating carbs, especially if they eat a reasonable amount of food in general (or balance the carbs with other foods). Like I said, I think low carb is great for those it works for, but the rhetoric about it sometimes sounds as if the benefits you experience would be experienced by everyone, and that's just not the case.
Also, everyone should lose weight eating food they perceive as delicious. I certainly have.0 -
Both your examples are flawed.
It should be clear from the examples given that I'm comparing two persons, same level of fitness, different loads (weight). If you want to compare different persons at different levels of fitness why are we having a conversation on an inane premise? Even at 255 I could beat some 150 pound chain smokers. That is not the point of this discussion, a discussion you launched, not I.
As a very fit mountaineer in my day I can assure you the examples are not flawed. I could cover two or three times the ground carrying nothing but a day pack (often running while doing so) than I could if carrying an expedition pack fully laden. No amount of additional training would close that delta. I don't have to imagine this, I've lived this.
At the risk of boring you with yet another example, you can demonstrate the impact of weight on yourself tomorrow. Carry a car tire around the block five times and time yourself. Repeat, only this time with a bicycle tire. Let us know the result. Go ahead and train all you want for a year and repeat. Let us know how that goes.
The primary determinant in energy expenditure is not fitness but weight. Fitness and training can impact speed, but the major factor in energy consumption is weight.
As for basic physics... Simply moving 40 or 60 or 100 extra pounds consumes a great deal (roughly linear) more energy. If the number of calories required to run 1km is roughly equal to body weight in kg, to run the marathon:- Heavier me: 115 * 42.195km = 4852 calories
- Current me: 86 * 42.195km = 3629 calories
- Goal me: 68 * 42.195km = 2869 calories
Just fuelling the larger mass machine is a problem let alone anything else.
Of course it is worse than it seems, since the heavier person is almost undoubtedly less aerobically fit than the lighter person (even if the same person) and thus energy expenditure will be correspondingly higher. Moving a lumbering body will impact running economy (form / gait / stride length ) where the more lithe runner can and almost certainly will gain in this area.
Regardless of fitness, the body expends energy to activate muscles to arrange its frame to support the weight of the load (body) and this is the primary factor in energy expenditure in determining the cost of running; not speed, not training.
Conversely, as the fatter person becomes less fat, they burn less calories covering the same distance. And as that same person becomes more aerobically fit, energy expenditure likewise drops.
Running performance improvements due to weight loss are not solely the concern of the heavy - elite runners trimming body fat in advance of racing season look to see roughly a 1 minute marathon time gain per pound of body fat reduced. For an already lean bunch, a couple of pounds matter. (Matt Fitzgerald, Racing Weight and innumerable elite runner blogs. Check. It. Out.).
For a not so lean person (but on his way), you bet 40 pounds matters. You need to argue against the laws of physics to argue otherwise.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »iluvstrwbrries wrote: »Those food pyramids are just wrong.
This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.
http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid
That's because it's not the standard food pyramid...it's a low carb food pyramid.
This is low carb? How?
My response was regarding MY low carb food pyramid. Not their standard food pyramid
0 -
iluvstrwbrries wrote: »Those food pyramids are just wrong.
This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.
http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid
That's because it's not the standard food pyramid...it's a low carb food pyramid.
Why would you say that this is a low carb pyramid ?
Are you aware that the two lower levels are ALL carbohydrates....albeit complex and not the processed simple sugar, doughnut, white bread and other processed ones ?
This is when reading an entire thread is a good thing... The Aussie post was responding to my food pyramid post ...I advising them that my post was low carb not the standard she/he posted.0 -
iluvstrwbrries wrote: »iluvstrwbrries wrote: »Those food pyramids are just wrong.
This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.
http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid
That's because it's not the standard food pyramid...it's a low carb food pyramid.
Why would you say that this is a low carb pyramid ?
Are you aware that the two lower levels are ALL carbohydrates....albeit complex and not the processed simple sugar, doughnut, white bread and other processed ones ?
This is when reading an entire thread is a good thing... The Aussie post was responding to my food pyramid post ...I advising them that my post was low carb not the standard she/he posted.
And I was posting my "thoughts on low carb" (the thread topic).
My next comments are not at you in particular:
No, I don't think "low carb will kill you".
I posted the food pyramid to show what is considered generally healthy by Nutrition Australia, whose purpose is nutrition, not shilling for industry, nor population-control or chemtrail-spraying.
If you need to eat low carb for medical reasons (such as diabetes) then THAT is healthy.
But I personally wouldn't be eating low carb unless a doctor advised that it would be better for me.
/my thoughts.0 -
I'd write post cards to random strangers to tell them about it.
LOL!
That's what I thought 65 pounds ago as it seemed like too steep a hill to climb at the time. It'll be much easier 40 pounds from now.
I don't think weight has anything to do with it or at least little to do with it. It's strength and training IMO. I watched a woman finish the Boston Marathon who looked to be overweight if not obese. She put in the time and the training. I like running sometimes but I would much prefer other kinds of activity. I run to accomplish it, but I am not a natural runner.
She'd have completed it faster if she hadn't been overweight.
For the same level of fitness, the lighter person will go farther, faster, when it comes to pretty much anything longer than sprinting distances.0 -
- Heavier me: 115 * 42.195km = 4852 calories
- Current me: 86 * 42.195km = 3629 calories
- Goal me: 68 * 42.195km = 2869 calories
Just fuelling the larger mass machine is a problem let alone anything else.
Factor in the speed at which the body can metabolize food intake - call it 300 calories/hour if sucking down Gu or etc - and you quickly run real hard into the painful realities of running out of energy if trying to go fast at size.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I am definitely in the pro "lower carb" camp. I'm aiming for 30 - 35% total but try not to eat any highly refined carbs... as much as possible at least. That means no plain ol' bread and very little bread at all over the course of a week. I think I had three slices this week after many weeks of zero. No bagels (and I used to live on bagels). No tortillas as a rule. I will have some whole grain multi-grain porridge once in a while. Carbs from vegetables are ok and fruits too but more veges than fruits.
Fats I let float wherever they will go; they are usually my biggest macro. This doesn't worry me as they are generally healthy fats.
I'm losing 2kg a week, and have been for quite some time. I'm not finding the reduced carbs gets in the way of my running (I'll run more than 200km this month). I feel satiated... full even and I don't crave carbs at all.
So far the mix is working very well for me.
200km a month is nothing to write home about as a runner. It is not even at a competitive (for a rec runner) level. A lot of the studies on LCHF diets and endurance seem to use a very low V02 max.
Why so negative ?
It adds up to a little more than 6.6 km a day and is a heck of a lot more than most of the world's population runs every day. That it does not fit into the class of a High Performance Athlete does not matter, it is an excellent achievement on it's own. I would be very proud of every km/mile I ran and bet I am not the only one.
0 -
I agree completely. This isn't a competitive thing. Most people, other than professional athletes and Olympians, run for health, fitness, or because they enjoy it.I am definitely in the pro "lower carb" camp. I'm aiming for 30 - 35% total but try not to eat any highly refined carbs... as much as possible at least. That means no plain ol' bread and very little bread at all over the course of a week. I think I had three slices this week after many weeks of zero. No bagels (and I used to live on bagels). No tortillas as a rule. I will have some whole grain multi-grain porridge once in a while. Carbs from vegetables are ok and fruits too but more veges than fruits.
Fats I let float wherever they will go; they are usually my biggest macro. This doesn't worry me as they are generally healthy fats.
I'm losing 2kg a week, and have been for quite some time. I'm not finding the reduced carbs gets in the way of my running (I'll run more than 200km this month). I feel satiated... full even and I don't crave carbs at all.
So far the mix is working very well for me.
200km a month is nothing to write home about as a runner. It is not even at a competitive (for a rec runner) level. A lot of the studies on LCHF diets and endurance seem to use a very low V02 max.
Why so negative ?
It adds up to a little more than 6.6 km a day and is a heck of a lot more than most of the world's population runs every day. That it does not fit into the class of a High Performance Athlete does not matter, it is an excellent achievement on it's own. I would be very proud for every km/mile I ran and bet I am not the only one.
FYI, there are some professional athletes on low carb diets. If Lebron James and Ray Allen can compete at the level they do while doing low carb, I think that proves you can do low carb and not have athletic performance suffer.
0 -
lauraesh0384 wrote: »Personally, I love low carb and the benefits. I get to lose weight by eating delicious food. I don't experience that carb coma after eating. I have more energy. But the thing with low carb is you have to make it a change in lifestyle. You can't expect to drop x amount of weight and revert back to your old eating habits and not gain weight back. Honestly, I don't really miss bread, rice, pasta, pizza, etc. But even when I'm thinking, "pizza sounds really good right now", there's a low carb option for that. Low carb works, end of story. I went from 240 lbs to my current 175. The hardest part is being around people who eat carbs. You tell them you can't have something because it's high in carbs. "Oh, you're allowed a cheat day". Yes I am, but it's not worth it to throw away a few days of hard work, and then feeling like *kitten* afterwards because you ate a carb loaded meal.
Why do so many people when they speak of carbs only think of rice, pasta, processed white bread and pizza ? There is much more to carbohydrates. When I think of them I usually think of vegetables, fruit, legumes, pulses artesanal bread made from minimally and not chemically processed grains ( with that I think mostly of grain being ground into flour ) and without chemical additives.
Now after reading all of this thread I wonder if people speaking of lower or low carb diets actually all refer to the absence of rice, pasta, processed white bread and pizza, but otherwise eat carbs at the statistically normal rate ?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions