low carb thoughts?
Replies
-
You are not going to find the answers you seek here. Next time you have a physical, ask the doctor about it. If it's confusing, ask for a referral to a dietitian.
You can lose weight on any diet, but the right diet for you has to be based on your condition(s), history, etc. There is no One Size Fits All.
doctors are not versed in nutrition...so I would go with a NO on this one.0 -
kangaroux92 wrote: »thanks for the thoughts , i think i will try it out for a while to see how i feel.
i know carbs are bad anyway and it makes so much sence to me.
carbs are used for quick energy and our body uses it firs. so if your body has less carbs it will get energy from fat instead.
at least thats what ive been told.RockstarWilson wrote: »People people people. A high fat diet is not an entitlement, but a tool. CICO is a form the Law of Conservation of Energy takes (see what I did there?). Fat takes more energy to digest, therefore it takes more time, and furthermore you get hungry less.
Carbs ARE NOT the preferred energy source of the body. If that were the case, it wouldn't push those out first. If you allow it to, the body runs very well on fats and moderate proteins.
As far as fruits and veggies go...my bowels hate them. They cause me gas something fierce, so I consume them sparingly. Spinach is awesome, though. And pineapples, when they are on sale.
I am 10 months high fat dieting (sometimes keto), I eat a TON of saturated fats, I am 35 lbs overweight, and I have an almost perfect lipid panel. That's what I think.
Uh..No. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-fat-preferred-fuel-source-body-qa.html/
"So what happens when you provide the body with both carbs and fats in the diet? Which fuel source is preferred? Well the answer is clear: carbs."
You are quoting a body recomposition site for nutritional science. There are many reasons why this isnt the best idea. You would be most useful if you shared information from someone educated in nutrition at a higher level.
Lyle McDonald is pretty damn credible... degrees or not.
OP has a direct relation with Type 2. OP has a strong reason to go low carb as it decreases risk of type 2. Lyle would be a fine resource if she asked how to fix her butt.
My reply was directly to the statement of the previous poster stating that "Carbs ARE NOT the preferred energy source of the body". I even put it in BOLD of what I was referring to. This was to correct the incorrect information he gave. Nothing else was given, except my backing up of my correction by someone, who in the area of nutrition, is very well studied, respected, and referenced by the leading researchers in this field had you investigated further.
Yes, I understand, the whole "carbs are preferred" refrain is based on carbs being used first. "Preferred" is a stretch and sounds a bit like internet pseudo-nutri-guru-ish rather than any kind of serious science. It isn't good to quote muscle. guys for mainstream nutritional info - especially when folks are trying to improve nutritional composition for health rather than muscles.
Muscles are great, but the nutrition is not the same as lifelong health for those with health concerns.
*head desk*
why is your fall back to bash people that strength train?
So you are saying that because Lyle is a body builder that his thoughts on nutrition can automatically be tossed in the can? That is absolutely ridiculous, and you know it.0 -
I tend to eat fairly low-carb to begin with and did quite well with a ketogenic diet before. Recently, I've made the switch back to keto to see how it'll help with energy levels at my office job and with my ridiculous training/every-hobby-I-do-is-physical schedule.
I like it for the satiety, too, though I struggle a little with that. I failed on keto the first time because I got full on 1,000~cal or so and wouldn't push myself to eat more to stick within a healthy minimum range - hair started thinning out, I lost libido and lost a bit of energy. My mood was great, though, so I stuck at a lower caloric intake than I should have for longer than I ought have.
This time 'round, though, I'm trying to squeeze in the more caloric things and make sure I get 1600cal at least during the day. Fibre is a bit of an issue as well, but chia seeds and broccoli will help, I think.
I don't plan to eat keto 100% of the time, though - I plan to take 1 week of balanced diet (still at 1600cal intake) for every 8-16 weeks of keto, depending on how I feel at the time. I also plan to experiment with TKD (targeted intake of carbs before an intense workout, aiming to use up that energy and drop yourself back into keto after) around my karate practice or drumming if I feel the need for more energy during tests or performances.
I really love reddit's /r/keto - their sidebar and community are fantastic for linking to many studies on the ketogenic (and other Low Carb High Fat) diet and its effects and history. I strongly recommend doing your own research, even if you do find a dietitian who specializes in low-carb. It's nice to have your own thoughts and your own theories - not only do you get more involved in the process, but you become more educated and able to detect if someone's stringing you along with false information.
On this note, @ndj1979 is absolutely right - doctors are not trained in nutrition. I'm not sure about where you live, OP, but in Canada our doctors get a cursory look at nutrition in school and nothing else - the rest they either don't need to learn or need to do their own research to learn up on it.
Also note, nutritionists are also not experts, at least not in Canada (perhaps also not in the States). Dietitians, however, are and they're the ones who are experts on nutrition. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, but dietitians go through an extremely rigorous and selective process to even get the chance at being certified.0 -
kangaroux92 wrote: »thanks for the thoughts , i think i will try it out for a while to see how i feel.
i know carbs are bad anyway and it makes so much sence to me.
carbs are used for quick energy and our body uses it firs. so if your body has less carbs it will get energy from fat instead.
at least thats what ive been told.RockstarWilson wrote: »People people people. A high fat diet is not an entitlement, but a tool. CICO is a form the Law of Conservation of Energy takes (see what I did there?). Fat takes more energy to digest, therefore it takes more time, and furthermore you get hungry less.
Carbs ARE NOT the preferred energy source of the body. If that were the case, it wouldn't push those out first. If you allow it to, the body runs very well on fats and moderate proteins.
As far as fruits and veggies go...my bowels hate them. They cause me gas something fierce, so I consume them sparingly. Spinach is awesome, though. And pineapples, when they are on sale.
I am 10 months high fat dieting (sometimes keto), I eat a TON of saturated fats, I am 35 lbs overweight, and I have an almost perfect lipid panel. That's what I think.
Uh..No. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-fat-preferred-fuel-source-body-qa.html/
"So what happens when you provide the body with both carbs and fats in the diet? Which fuel source is preferred? Well the answer is clear: carbs."
You are quoting a body recomposition site for nutritional science. There are many reasons why this isnt the best idea. You would be most useful if you shared information from someone educated in nutrition at a higher level.
Lyle McDonald is pretty damn credible... degrees or not.
OP has a direct relation with Type 2. OP has a strong reason to go low carb as it decreases risk of type 2. Lyle would be a fine resource if she asked how to fix her butt.
Lyle is a pretty good source on anything that goes in your mouth, and you if don't recognize that, you need to watch what comes out of yours.0 -
kangaroux92 wrote: »im looking for someone who is versed on nutrition , and what their thoughts on low carb diets.
i need to improve my diet, and my father who is also mind you type 2 diabetic has lost like over 20 pounds in like 2-3 months from changing his diet
idk if its a long term thing but wondering if its successful.
most people who eat anything remotely resembling the SAD could stand to moderate their carbohydrate intake as well as make better nutritional choices as to the carbs they are eating...that said, low carb is not really necessary. low carb is very beneficial for certain metabolic medical conditions, but outside of that I don't know why anyone would want to low carb...I personally love eating fruits and veggies and legumes and oats and whatnot...0 -
If your goal is specifically to lose weight in the form of fat, you probably should lower your carb intake, but taking a low carb diet, which has only 20% of your calories coming from carbs as defined by experts, isn't necessary. Setting your carbs to 30% on here will help you eat fewer carbs without feeling restricted. Your body burns carbs first, followed by the glycogen stores in the body, and then finally fat. Naturally, if you count your calories and reduce your carb intake you can lose weight and have it be mostly fat loss rather than a combo of both muscle and fat loss.0
-
It is hard to get the details of how the various diet strategies work optimally on MFP. Too many want to say only my way
One way is eating lower carb and doing moderate to intense cardio to burn out your glucose and then the body, mitochondria, switches to a higher mix of fat for fuel.
It is a well documented training program. Google mitochondria endurance training
I have lost somewhere around 145 lbs of fat and added back 25 lbs of muscle in a year and a half
If you want to know a few details ask me. I'm not into forum bickering over someone's favorite strategy. Many work if you follow them. You just need to find one that suits you and has long term potential for you
And bottom line.... What do you want to look like?
Good luck OP.
But remember, whatever strategy for life you choose, you can't out exercise your fork.
Peace0 -
professionalHobbyist wrote: »It is hard to get the details of how the various diet strategies work optimally on MFP. Too many want to say only my way
So true. That's why these kinds of topics rage on for multiple pages. It's usually always back and forth with listen to my way, and then various scientific articles are posted confirming either sides viewpoints
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »professionalHobbyist wrote: »It is hard to get the details of how the various diet strategies work optimally on MFP. Too many want to say only my way
So true. That's why these kinds of topics rage on for multiple pages. It's usually always back and forth with listen to my way, and then various scientific articles are posted confirming either sides viewpoints
this comment has what to do with OP's question????0 -
Firm believer in low carb and moderate fat for quick and effective weight loss. There are many peer reviewed studies that document its safety and effectiveness. Good luck in your endeavor!0
-
SandraHughes2 wrote: »Firm believer in low carb and moderate fat for quick and effective weight loss. There are many peer reviewed studies that document its safety and effectiveness. Good luck in your endeavor!
please post said studies..
as there are just as many showing high protein/moderate carb/moderate fat will do the same and/or outperform low carb...0 -
SandraHughes2 wrote: »Firm believer in low carb and moderate fat for quick and effective weight loss. There are many peer reviewed studies that document its safety and effectiveness. Good luck in your endeavor!
please post said studies..
as there are just as many showing high protein/moderate carb/moderate fat will do the same and/or outperform low carb...
Here's some: http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »SandraHughes2 wrote: »Firm believer in low carb and moderate fat for quick and effective weight loss. There are many peer reviewed studies that document its safety and effectiveness. Good luck in your endeavor!
please post said studies..
as there are just as many showing high protein/moderate carb/moderate fat will do the same and/or outperform low carb...
Here's some: http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
I was not asking you, I was asking the person that referred to studies. but thanks..0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »SandraHughes2 wrote: »Firm believer in low carb and moderate fat for quick and effective weight loss. There are many peer reviewed studies that document its safety and effectiveness. Good luck in your endeavor!
please post said studies..
as there are just as many showing high protein/moderate carb/moderate fat will do the same and/or outperform low carb...
Here's some: http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
I am assuming none of those studies controlled for protein ….0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »SandraHughes2 wrote: »Firm believer in low carb and moderate fat for quick and effective weight loss. There are many peer reviewed studies that document its safety and effectiveness. Good luck in your endeavor!
please post said studies..
as there are just as many showing high protein/moderate carb/moderate fat will do the same and/or outperform low carb...
Here's some: http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
I am assuming none of those studies controlled for protein ….
Trying to be helpful. You've heard of helpful?
Yes, the protein levels are accounted for.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »nvsmomketo wrote: »SandraHughes2 wrote: »Firm believer in low carb and moderate fat for quick and effective weight loss. There are many peer reviewed studies that document its safety and effectiveness. Good luck in your endeavor!
please post said studies..
as there are just as many showing high protein/moderate carb/moderate fat will do the same and/or outperform low carb...
Here's some: http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
I am assuming none of those studies controlled for protein ….
Trying to be helpful. You've heard of helpful?
Yes, the protein levels are accounted for.
please point out the macros for low carb and moderate carb groups0 -
Rocky_1975 wrote: »nvsmomketo wrote: »SandraHughes2 wrote: »Firm believer in low carb and moderate fat for quick and effective weight loss. There are many peer reviewed studies that document its safety and effectiveness. Good luck in your endeavor!
please post said studies..
as there are just as many showing high protein/moderate carb/moderate fat will do the same and/or outperform low carb...
Here's some: http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
Low carb cult members really like to parrot this link without reading the actual studies. Authority Nutrition is run by a someone who drank too much low carb kool-aid
You really don't like someone disagreeing with you, do you? Name calling is always helpful. Very nice.
I'm glad your high carb works for you. Power to you.0 -
found this gem in the first study ..
Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost significantly more weight than the subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (P=0.002) and 6 months (P=0.03), but the difference in weight loss was not statistically significant at 12 months (P=0.27) (Table 3TABLE 3
so over 12 months was not significant...0 -
Correct. At 12 months they even out, give or take a few kilos. It's just up to 6 months that it out performs.0
-
nvsmomketo wrote: »Correct. At 12 months they even out, give or take a few kilos. It's just up to 6 months that it out performs.
so then one is not superior to the other.
and I am still waiting for the macro breakdown0 -
study Design
The two diet groups attended separate two-hour group-teaching sessions each week for four weeks, followed by monthly one-hour sessions for five additional months; all sessions were led by experts in nutritional counseling. Subjects received a diet-overview handout, instructional nutrition labels, sample menus and recipes, and a book on counting calories and carbohydrates.5 No specific exercise program was recommended. The subjects assigned to the low-carbohydrate diet were instructed to restrict carbohydrate intake to 30 g per day or less.6 No instruction on restricting total fat intake was provided. Vegetables and fruits with high ratios of fiber to carbohydrate were recommended.6 The subjects assigned to the low-fat diet received instruction in accordance with the obesity-management guidelines of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,7 including caloric restriction sufficient to create a deficit of 500 calories per day, with 30 percent or less of total calories derived from fat.
^ I see noting about controlling for protein….0 -
There are 23 studies. I don't know which one that is.
Macros... Here is lecture on the Stanford study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo
The LCHF was started at about 55%F, 17%C, 28%P. The more moderate diets started at 42%C, 34%F, 24%P, and 50%C, 30%F, 20%P. The Low fat diet (Ornish) was 63%C, 20%F 17%P. The macros shifted a bit by 6 months. LCHF got up to 30% carbs, and the others gained fat with lowfat at about 57%.
Please remember that I never said one diet is superior to the other. I think I said that LCHF works for me. Low fat might work for others, and 30/30/40 might work for more. This works for me.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »There are 23 studies. I don't know which one that is.
Macros... Here is lecture on the Stanford study.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo
The LCHF was started at about 55%F, 17%C, 28%P. The more moderate diets started at 42%C, 34%F, 24%P, and 50%C, 30%F, 20%P. The Low fat diet (Ornish) was 63%C, 20%F 17%P. The macros shifted a bit by 6 months. LCHF got up to 30% carbs, and the others gained fat with lowfat at about 57%.
Please remember that I never said one diet is superior to the other. I think I said that LCHF works for me. Low fat might work for others, and 30/30/40 might work for more. This works for me.
why wasn't protein constant for all groups?0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »Correct. At 12 months they even out, give or take a few kilos. It's just up to 6 months that it out performs.
so then one is not superior to the other.
and I am still waiting for the macro breakdown
The most interesting element to this study is that the low carb group was limited to 30g carbohydrates, but no calorie restriction. The low fat group was eating at a 500cal deficit.
0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »Correct. At 12 months they even out, give or take a few kilos. It's just up to 6 months that it out performs.
so then one is not superior to the other.
and I am still waiting for the macro breakdown
The most interesting element to this study is that the low carb group was limited to 30g carbohydrates, but no calorie restriction. The low fat group was eating at a 500cal deficit.
if the LC group lost weight they were in a deficit. Not sure what your point is.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »Correct. At 12 months they even out, give or take a few kilos. It's just up to 6 months that it out performs.
so then one is not superior to the other.
and I am still waiting for the macro breakdown
The most interesting element to this study is that the low carb group was limited to 30g carbohydrates, but no calorie restriction. The low fat group was eating at a 500cal deficit.
if the LC group lost weight they were in a deficit. Not sure what your point is.
and the study design says that instruction was given for 500 calorie deficit.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »Correct. At 12 months they even out, give or take a few kilos. It's just up to 6 months that it out performs.
so then one is not superior to the other.
and I am still waiting for the macro breakdown
The most interesting element to this study is that the low carb group was limited to 30g carbohydrates, but no calorie restriction. The low fat group was eating at a 500cal deficit.
True. I prefer other studies where calories were the same. They made the low-fat group calorie restricted in a few other studies.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »There are 23 studies. I don't know which one that is.
Macros... Here is lecture on the Stanford study.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo
The LCHF was started at about 55%F, 17%C, 28%P. The more moderate diets started at 42%C, 34%F, 24%P, and 50%C, 30%F, 20%P. The Low fat diet (Ornish) was 63%C, 20%F 17%P. The macros shifted a bit by 6 months. LCHF got up to 30% carbs, and the others gained fat with lowfat at about 57%.
Please remember that I never said one diet is superior to the other. I think I said that LCHF works for me. Low fat might work for others, and 30/30/40 might work for more. This works for me.
why wasn't protein constant for all groups?
In this Stanford study, they followed diets from books: Atkins, Zone, Traditional (L.E.A.R.N), and Ornish. They vary in the amounts of protein called for. The other studies varied.0 -
nvsmomketo wrote: »nvsmomketo wrote: »There are 23 studies. I don't know which one that is.
Macros... Here is lecture on the Stanford study.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo
The LCHF was started at about 55%F, 17%C, 28%P. The more moderate diets started at 42%C, 34%F, 24%P, and 50%C, 30%F, 20%P. The Low fat diet (Ornish) was 63%C, 20%F 17%P. The macros shifted a bit by 6 months. LCHF got up to 30% carbs, and the others gained fat with lowfat at about 57%.
Please remember that I never said one diet is superior to the other. I think I said that LCHF works for me. Low fat might work for others, and 30/30/40 might work for more. This works for me.
why wasn't protein constant for all groups?
In this Stanford study, they followed diets from books: Atkins, Zone, Traditional (L.E.A.R.N), and Ornish. They vary in the amounts of protein called for. The other studies varied.
so the high carb group has the lowest protein intake and the low carb group has the highest protein intake….don't you think that skews the numbers? As protein is shown to increase tef which increases calories burned…0 -
OP has a direct relation with Type 2. OP has a strong reason to go low carb as it decreases risk of type 2. Lyle would be a fine resource if she asked how to fix her butt.
You do realize that type 2 is not genetic right? So unless there is another issue, then its a non issue.
Op, i have tried lower carb (when i went paleo) and failed. I was always binging and could never stick with it. So if you dont feel its going to be a way of life, you will probably end up spinning your wheels.
I will agree that its one of many effective strategies to lose weight if you are in a deficit. But if you do decide to go low carb, make sure you research it first and figure out what is required. Its not just cutting carbs. You will need to increase fats.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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