low carb thoughts?
Replies
-
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…
Not really. By the end the protein was all within a few percent of the others. I think those on a low carb diet tend to eat more protein. It is difficult, not palatable, or easy to eat 100% fat. The fat is often attached to a protein.
I keep responding with the hope that you might understand that I think the LCHF diet is just another WOE. This WOE is often beneficial to diabetics and those with health problems. It is good for improved health in those individuals. I fully admit that this may not be a desirable way others to eat. I know it is not necessary or helpful to everybody.
LCHF not a bad WOE. I've seen people complain that sugar is evil and others disputed that - strongly. Well, I don't think LCHF is evil or bad either. Go ahead and eat that ice cream (or whatever).
If you want to lose weight it still comes down to a calorie deficit. We're agreed on that I think.
0 -
Did anyone else experience feeling very sick the first few days of low carb?
I have done LCHF in the past with great success and never felt this way - but I have started eating healthy/exercising and staying low carb for the last few days after a long hiatus of eating crap and I have zero energy, heart palpatations, shortness of breath and feel very foggy in the brain and anxious. Is this what the 'low carb flu' is supposed to feel like? Thanks.0 -
Low Mg, K, and Na could make the keto flu worse. Consider increasing your intake for a time.
I felt tired and head achy during my adaption phase. Your symptoms are more serious than mine. It could be keto flu or something else less benign. I would see a doctor about the shortness of breath and heart palpitations to be safe.
Best wishes.0 -
You do realize that type 2 is not genetic right?
The ADA don't agree -
"Type 2 diabetes has a stronger link to family history and lineage than type 1, although it too depends on environmental factors.
Studies of twins have shown that genetics play a very strong role in the development of type 2 diabetes.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/genetics-of-diabetes.html"
0 -
You do realize that type 2 is not genetic right?
The ADA don't agree -
"Type 2 diabetes has a stronger link to family history and lineage than type 1, although it too depends on environmental factors.
Studies of twins have shown that genetics play a very strong role in the development of type 2 diabetes.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/genetics-of-diabetes.html"
I redact my previous statements, I could have swore I read a recent article stating type II isn't as genetic as previously thought.
0 -
If 19 out of 20 people annually diagnosed in the US have type 2 diabetes maybe the ADA is saying genetics plays a role and missing statistics. Seems like if more people in the population have type 2 then you would or could have a relative which is diabetic and be type 2. You want to review information from the Joslin (I think this is correct) group out of Boston. Just spitballing.0
-
I guess the question comes down to, is what is the statistical significance of genetics when it comes to type II._Terrapin_ wrote: »If 19 out of 20 people annually diagnosed in the US have type 2 diabetes maybe the ADA is saying genetics plays a role and missing statistics. Seems like if more people in the population have type 2 then you would or could have a relative which is diabetic and be type 2. You want to review information from the Joslin (I think this is correct) group out of Boston. Just spitballing.
0 -
I guess the question comes down to, is what is the statistical significance of genetics when it comes to type II._Terrapin_ wrote: »If 19 out of 20 people annually diagnosed in the US have type 2 diabetes maybe the ADA is saying genetics plays a role and missing statistics. Seems like if more people in the population have type 2 then you would or could have a relative which is diabetic and be type 2. You want to review information from the Joslin (I think this is correct) group out of Boston. Just spitballing.
From what I've read, limited as it is, they (the medical community) aren't certain either way. You can read if a sibling was lean and becomes type 2 then the likelihood increases. I'm sure there are other qualifiers then this, but this example is one I remember.
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.
Lyle McDonald isn't a "muscle guy" - he's a former speed skater who also happens to be a) well versed in current nutritional science as it pertains to sport performance, strength and muscle synthesis; and b) a complete arsehat.
His grasp of the current research is great.
Perhaps, you should know of what you speak before you open your mouth.0 -
Calories do matter but when you manage the carbs at the same time you make a ton more progress.
Most of us are conditioned for a carb based energy system but if you work at it you can get back to a fat based energy system. Here's the difference as it applies to endurance sports, like running.
If you are Carb Based you have a energy reserve of roughly 2,000 calories.
If you are Fat Based you have an energy reserve of ten times that.
The other nice aspect of low carb is you end up eating really good food. Look at what's in your grocery cart. Is it full of cheap carbs? Labels saying "Low Fat" and spiked with sugar instead?
One suggestion is to orbit the outside perimeter of the grocery store and avoid the aisles. That's where the lower Glycemic Index foods are located.
My carb count is always below 100 and on many days below 60. At the same time, my calorie count is typically below 2,000 with an occasional bump of several hundred (smart) calories to keep my Lepton levels elevated.
My advice would be to pay attention to both numbers and learn more about which foods are spiking your blood sugar (high glycemic index.)0 -
Calories do matter but when you manage the carbs at the same time you make a ton more progress.
Most of us are conditioned for a carb based energy system but if you work at it you can get back to a fat based energy system. Here's the difference as it applies to endurance sports, like running.
If you are Carb Based you have a energy reserve of roughly 2,000 calories.
If you are Fat Based you have an energy reserve of ten times that.
The other nice aspect of low carb is you end up eating really good food. Look at what's in your grocery cart. Is it full of cheap carbs? Labels saying "Low Fat" and spiked with sugar instead?
One suggestion is to orbit the outside perimeter of the grocery store and avoid the aisles. That's where the lower Glycemic Index foods are located.
My carb count is always below 100 and on many days below 60. At the same time, my calorie count is typically below 2,000 with an occasional bump of several hundred (smart) calories to keep my Lepton levels elevated.
My advice would be to pay attention to both numbers and learn more about which foods are spiking your blood sugar (high glycemic index.)
I don't know what type of crappy shopping you did when you were high carb, but I certain do not shop like what you describe. I buy veggies (cucumbers, onions, zucchini, squash, tomatoes), fruits (grapes, apples, peaches, bananas, etc), greek yogurt, meats (sirloin, bacon, chicken, pork, etc...), eggs, milk, whole wheat bread, p28 bagels and a few other stuff.
I mainly shop the outside of the market, but if I want a Klondike bar after a day of eating nutrient dense foods, then I do. And I do that, because I typically eat 2500-3000 calories a day, of which, 2200 of very nutrient dense foods (I love to cook). And of that 2200, I typically get 80-90g of fat, 150g+ of protein and the rest of carbs.
And the reason why so many low carb threads turn into huge battles is because many people make assumptions about other peoples diets that hold ZERO merit. Sadly, I think many of us (both on the side of LCHF and IIFYM or flexible eaters) would agree that eating a variety of foods is essentially for good health, adequate protein (.8-1g per lb of lbm) is beneficial for muscle retention, and that you should try to get most of your calories (80-90%) of your calories from nutrient dense sources.
0 -
Rocky_1975 wrote: »Sorry but fat-adapted is becoming a myth. Carbs are king for high performance
How REAL athletes who win fuel up:
Low carb show better INITIAL results, but it evens out long-term.
I would say that carbs are the most common for high performers. I don't think burning fat for fitness is a negative experience. For some it may be less efficient, but for others it works just fine, or may be a better WOE.
If you are interested in reading the experiences of some athletes who excel while in ketosis, this is a blog of LCHF WOE runner who had his stats (VO2, etc) checked:
http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/2014/05/how-much-fat-can-you-burn-2/
The blog of a doctor who lives in ketosis. He's a long distance swimmer and has done quite well:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
http://eatingacademy.com/start-here
I don't think LC is becoming a myth. It's just another WOE that works very well for some people. If done in a healthy manner, it does not put people at a fitness disadvantage.0 -
I personally believe going low carb is a good idea. Carbs give you a short burst of energy whereas fats and protein give you longer lasting energy (not to mention give you waaay less of an insulin spike). And whether or not someone has insulin resistance they need to be mindful of their insulin. Insulin is a very important weight moderator in the body and if you spend all day eating carbs one day, whether it be tomorrow or in 20 years, eventually your body will not be able to take the large spikes any more. This is why many middle age people find they gain weight or develop Type 2 Diabetes.0
-
rachelscheepstra wrote: »I personally believe going low carb is a good idea. Carbs give you a short burst of energy whereas fats and protein give you longer lasting energy (not to mention give you waaay less of an insulin spike). And whether or not someone has insulin resistance they need to be mindful of their insulin. Insulin is a very important weight moderator in the body and if you spend all day eating carbs one day, whether it be tomorrow or in 20 years, eventually your body will not be able to take the large spikes any more. This is why many middle age people find they gain weight or develop Type 2 Diabetes.
Yeah.
But, some of us train hard and require carbs. I'm in my forties now and my profile pic is me being "fluffy" at the end of a recent bulk. When I've finished cutting (still eating plenty of carbs - I might point out), I'll be close to single digit bf% again. I haven't suddenly "ballooned up" because I'm eating carbs approaching middle age.
Calorie surplus/deficit is what governs gain/loss (excluding underlying medical conditions). I know this, becuase I and others like me, routinely manipulate our bodyweight upwards and downwards on purpose. And we do this whilst eating carbs.0 -
rachelscheepstra wrote: »I personally believe going low carb is a good idea. Carbs give you a short burst of energy whereas fats and protein give you longer lasting energy (not to mention give you waaay less of an insulin spike). And whether or not someone has insulin resistance they need to be mindful of their insulin. Insulin is a very important weight moderator in the body and if you spend all day eating carbs one day, whether it be tomorrow or in 20 years, eventually your body will not be able to take the large spikes any more. This is why many middle age people find they gain weight or develop Type 2 Diabetes.
I am just going to put this here..
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
so you don't eat protein because fear of insulin spikes right?0 -
I guess the question comes down to, is what is the statistical significance of genetics when it comes to type II._Terrapin_ wrote: »If 19 out of 20 people annually diagnosed in the US have type 2 diabetes maybe the ADA is saying genetics plays a role and missing statistics. Seems like if more people in the population have type 2 then you would or could have a relative which is diabetic and be type 2. You want to review information from the Joslin (I think this is correct) group out of Boston. Just spitballing.
" When one twin has type 2 diabetes, the other's risk is at most 3 in 4."0 -
rachelscheepstra wrote: »I personally believe going low carb is a good idea. Carbs give you a short burst of energy whereas fats and protein give you longer lasting energy (not to mention give you waaay less of an insulin spike). And whether or not someone has insulin resistance they need to be mindful of their insulin. Insulin is a very important weight moderator in the body and if you spend all day eating carbs one day, whether it be tomorrow or in 20 years, eventually your body will not be able to take the large spikes any more. This is why many middle age people find they gain weight or develop Typ 2 Diabetes.
So based on that logic, billions of Asians whose diet typically consists of around 70% carbs are doomed...uh no.
0 -
No, not doomed, just measurably smaller in stature.So based on that logic, billions of Asians whose diet typically consists of around 70% carbs are doomed...uh no.
Look at those who move to the US where good quality protein is available. Those tall kids aren't coming from some recessive gene.
0 -
And the life expectancy in those blue zones are also higher....
No, not doomed, just measurably smaller in stature.So based on that logic, billions of Asians whose diet typically consists of around 70% carbs are doomed...uh no.
Look at those who move to the US where good quality protein is available. Those tall kids aren't coming from some recessive gene.
0 -
Point being, I don't think that a diet that includes more high quality protein is responsible for the mortality rate in the US compared to other areas of the world.
While a diet that consists of 70% carbohydrate may be survivable, I would not depict it as healthy.
If I take protein out of your diet and only fed you Fat & Carbohydrate ,,,, you would die because I just cut off your source of essential amino acids.
If I take out Fat and only feed you Protein & Carbohydrates ..... again, you would die because I just cutoff your source of essential fats.
The trend over the last 50-60 years has been to avoid fats and replace them with carbohydrates and the increase in the incidence of obesity is paralleling that curve. Correlation or Causation?0 -
Point being, I don't think that a diet that includes more high quality protein is responsible for the mortality rate in the US compared to other areas of the world.
While a diet that consists of 70% carbohydrate may be survivable, I would not depict it as healthy.
If I take protein out of your diet and only fed you Fat & Carbohydrate ,,,, you would die because I just cut off your source of essential amino acids.
If I take out Fat and only feed you Protein & Carbohydrates ..... again, you would die because I just cutoff your source of essential fats.
The trend over the last 50-60 years has been to avoid fats and replace them with carbohydrates and the increase in the incidence of obesity is paralleling that curve. Correlation or Causation?
I will relay your concerns to the Okinawans, whose diet is 60-85% carbs...oops, sorry, I will have died by then as they out live us all.
0 -
OP
Endurance athletes using slow release carbs and fat are not uncommon
I did this ride fasted and drank two 100 calorie carb based thermogenic drinks during the ride.
It is the function of your mitochondria to source fat as fuel when carbs run out.
My internal medicine specialist got me on moderate to low carb and exercise to reverse my type 2 diabetes.
So it can happen and you can take control and make things better
This was my ride today. Burn was mainly fat. I have lost over 125 lbs of body fat.
I have made this work at 50-100 carbs a day. Not super low. But if you get your carbs thru fibrous veggies it takes some eating.
Good luck! And of course you know you can't eat more calories than you need.
High or low carb, your CICO equation holds true.
0 -
I will relay your concerns to the Okinawans, whose diet is 60-85% carbs...oops, sorry, I will have died by then as they out live us all. Don't forget the Inuits. I'll bet they eat a lot of carbs with all those Klondike Bars.
Good job!professionalHobbyist wrote: »OP
This was my ride today. Burn was mainly fat. I have lost over 125 lbs of body fat.
I have made this work at 50-100 carbs a day. Not super low. But if you get your carbs thru fibrous veggies it
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »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.
YOU do realize that that is Lyle McDonald, right? Sorry but he's definitely a credible source.
0 -
I am 69 and on 40% carb, 30% protein, 30% fat. Is this a low carb or high carb program. Help please. I am confused with the back and forth. I just want to stay healthy. Age is a number, energy etc is most important. Thank you.0
-
I am 69 and on 40% carb, 30% protein, 30% fat. Is this a low carb or high carb program. Help please. I am confused with the back and forth. I just want to stay healthy. Age is a number, energy etc is most important. Thank you.
That's restricted carbohydrate, as the bog standard recommendation is 50 or more. Increased protein might be another description.0 -
I am 69 and on 40% carb, 30% protein, 30% fat. Is this a low carb or high carb program. Help please. I am confused with the back and forth. I just want to stay healthy. Age is a number, energy etc is most important. Thank you.
Unfortunately you will see lots of bickering on MFP and it really is not helpful at all
Lots of people just watch total calories. They go by the age old formula of CICO, calories in and calories out. Meaning you can't take more in than you burn off
You can eat fewer sugar and starch foods, which means you are eliminating some carbs, and lose weight. Or you can eat a variety of foods and not worry so much about it as long as you get a sensible balance of nutrition
The big thing is to eat less than your body needs so it burns off some fat.
It isn't really complicated.
If you can get in some walking or exercise your body is ready for then so much the better.
Best wishes!
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
- 427 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