low carb diet has been debunked
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Why are you so hung up on that? It got explained why they didn't go lower than that and compared to what they had before, it IS low carb, and FWIW I get more total grams of carbs in a day total (irrelevant without context) and as a higher percentage of my macros (that's more important). There have been discussions on low carb before where multiple low carbers pretty much said "anything lower than SAD is low carb".NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror)
often less than the restricted carb part of this study, FWIW :-)
Yep, in another thread MrKnight just claimed that under 200 was low carb for him.
What Mr Knight claimed was that under 200g/day was low carb for any active, non-short male. And I'm not alone in that claim - when dieticians/"journalists" claim the Lakers basketball team has gone "low carb", they're talking about 200-300g of carbs per day.
My average exercise burn is ~700 cal/day, in 60 minutes. And those are real calories, not MFP or HRM magical unicorn fart calories (so 1000+ per day, using MFP-like numbers). Impossible to support that level of output every day without eating bunches of carbs.
If I went slower and stretched it out to 3-4 hours - yes, it would be possible because the power output drops down to what is supportable by fat mobilization.
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »I agree with Stephen Guyenet's assessment. Low carb diet wasn't what was debunked.
"This study was designed to investigate a mechanism, namely that insulin levels are the dominant controller of fat mass. It was sufficiently long to reject that hypothesis. The carb-insulin hypothesis doesn't say anything about insulin not being relevant to adiposity for the first 6 days, then kicking in after that. At least, not any version of it I've encountered. This study was not about which diet leads to better results under real-world conditions. There are many other studies that have addressed that question."
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
Thanks for posting this more complete commentary on the studies findings.0 -
How many grams a day is considered low carb though?0
-
-
Subscribing to read when I get in later, I just know from the first few posts this will be good lol!0
-
How many grams a day is considered low carb though?
Most low carb people consider under 100g of carbs per day as low carb. Many say 150g is low carb, especially if active. I've not yet talked with a low carber who says above 150g is low carb. Could be though.
A ketogenic diet is usually under 50g of carbs, although many of us aim for 5% of our macros from carbs. For me, that is 20 something.0 -
I avoid excessive carbs for only one reason: the foods they are in are usually high in calories. I still eat bread and pasta and all that, but making them fit into my daily total is just not worth it a lot of times. A serving of tortellini, for example, is usually one cup, and I know that I'm not going to be able to stop at one cup.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Why are you so hung up on that? It got explained why they didn't go lower than that and compared to what they had before, it IS low carb, and FWIW I get more total grams of carbs in a day total (irrelevant without context) and as a higher percentage of my macros (that's more important). There have been discussions on low carb before where multiple low carbers pretty much said "anything lower than SAD is low carb".NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror)
often less than the restricted carb part of this study, FWIW :-)
Yep, in another thread MrKnight just claimed that under 200 was low carb for him.
What Mr Knight claimed was that under 200g/day was low carb for any active, non-short male.
Yes, I understood that. I didn't think you were claiming to have some special low carb number just for you.
I don't personally think it makes sense to define "low carb" by "less than the SAD." I am undecided as to whether I think it ought to relate to some total number or to percentage of calories -- for once, I don't really care that much -- but I guess the percentage of calories method makes the most sense to me.
So what percentage? Lower than is normally recommended, so under 45%? Calling the common 40-30-30 macro "low carb" seems absurd to me, but I'm open to argument. Under 30%, under 20%? I don't care, although to me the there is a serious difference between "lower carb" and "puts one consistently in ketosis."And I'm not alone in that claim - when dieticians/"journalists" claim the Lakers basketball team has gone "low carb", they're talking about 200-300g of carbs per day.
Good point.My average exercise burn is ~700 cal/day, in 60 minutes. And those are real calories, not MFP or HRM magical unicorn fart calories (so 1000+ per day, using MFP-like numbers). Impossible to support that level of output every day without eating bunches of carbs.
I'm not being critical of your carb consumption. I tend to agree with you.0 -
How many grams a day is considered low carb though?
Most low carb people consider under 100g of carbs per day as low carb. Many say 150g is low carb, especially if active. I've not yet talked with a low carber who says above 150g is low carb. Could be though.
A ketogenic diet is usually under 50g of carbs, although many of us aim for 5% of our macros from carbs. For me, that is 20 something.
Ah, thanks for the info! Jeez, under 50g of carbs.. I could never! LOL0 -
For a typical, lightly-active person, physiological changes (which may or may not be medically appropriate long term) start when carb intake is dropped to the 100-150g area, depending on size/genetics/etc.
My definition of low carb is any level flirting with that threshold, once activity burns are accounted for.0 -
For a typical, lightly-active person, physiological changes (which may or may not be medically appropriate long term) start when carb intake is dropped to the 100-150g area, depending on size/genetics/etc.
My definition of low carb is any level flirting with that threshold, once activity burns are accounted for.
What physiological changes?
I'm very active and eat around 150-200 (depending on whether I'm going for a deficit and how much I eat calories back, and I vary from day to day -- I pretty much allow myself to eat whatever amount of carbs/fat I feel like, although I tend to eat a higher carb (meaning balanced, including a starch) meal when it's the last meal I will have before a workout. Just curious if this is something I should be concerned about. I occasionally drop below 150 when cutting calories/not eating back exercise and am wondering if stuff I've been attributing to lower calories might be more carb-level-related.0 -
Tagging go read later.0
-
What I have learned from this thread is that I have been eating low carb and didn't know it. *shrug*0
-
It was clearly a *kitten* study; anybody can see that. It's great how y'all treat these issues like politics or religion and argue about them so vehemently. I love that!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
You clearly did read the study or understandthe context of what they were doing a study on.85Cardinals wrote: »It was clearly a *kitten* study; anybody can see that. It's great how y'all treat these issues like politics or religion and argue about them so vehemently. I love that!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Why are you so hung up on that? It got explained why they didn't go lower than that and compared to what they had before, it IS low carb, and FWIW I get more total grams of carbs in a day total (irrelevant without context) and as a higher percentage of my macros (that's more important). There have been discussions on low carb before where multiple low carbers pretty much said "anything lower than SAD is low carb".NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror)
often less than the restricted carb part of this study, FWIW :-)
Yep, in another thread MrKnight just claimed that under 200 was low carb for him.
What Mr Knight claimed was that under 200g/day was low carb for any active, non-short male.
Yes, I understood that. I didn't think you were claiming to have some special low carb number just for you.
I don't personally think it makes sense to define "low carb" by "less than the SAD." I am undecided as to whether I think it ought to relate to some total number or to percentage of calories -- for once, I don't really care that much -- but I guess the percentage of calories method makes the most sense to me.
So what percentage? Lower than is normally recommended, so under 45%? Calling the common 40-30-30 macro "low carb" seems absurd to me, but I'm open to argument. Under 30%, under 20%? I don't care, although to me the there is a serious difference between "lower carb" and "puts one consistently in ketosis."
I think 40C / 30P / 30F is the Zone diet... I think.
Most low carbers seem to call those in ketosis as very LCHF (vLCHF).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Why are you so hung up on that? It got explained why they didn't go lower than that and compared to what they had before, it IS low carb, and FWIW I get more total grams of carbs in a day total (irrelevant without context) and as a higher percentage of my macros (that's more important). There have been discussions on low carb before where multiple low carbers pretty much said "anything lower than SAD is low carb".NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror)
often less than the restricted carb part of this study, FWIW :-)
Yep, in another thread MrKnight just claimed that under 200 was low carb for him.
What Mr Knight claimed was that under 200g/day was low carb for any active, non-short male.
Yes, I understood that. I didn't think you were claiming to have some special low carb number just for you.
I don't personally think it makes sense to define "low carb" by "less than the SAD." I am undecided as to whether I think it ought to relate to some total number or to percentage of calories -- for once, I don't really care that much -- but I guess the percentage of calories method makes the most sense to me.
So what percentage? Lower than is normally recommended, so under 45%? Calling the common 40-30-30 macro "low carb" seems absurd to me, but I'm open to argument. Under 30%, under 20%? I don't care, although to me the there is a serious difference between "lower carb" and "puts one consistently in ketosis."
I think 40C / 30P / 30F is the Zone diet... I think.
Most low carbers seem to call those in ketosis as very LCHF (vLCHF).
You are correct, that is a zone diet.
0 -
The Zone Diet is typically classified as low-carb.
0 -
The Zone Diet is 40% and a review is provided with this link
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/zone-diet/reviews
It didn't score very high, maybe in the bottom third of the 30 plus diets reviewed. It scored higher then the Paleo diet though. I think the Paleo was listed in the bottom 3.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Why are you so hung up on that? It got explained why they didn't go lower than that and compared to what they had before, it IS low carb, and FWIW I get more total grams of carbs in a day total (irrelevant without context) and as a higher percentage of my macros (that's more important). There have been discussions on low carb before where multiple low carbers pretty much said "anything lower than SAD is low carb".NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror)
often less than the restricted carb part of this study, FWIW :-)
Yep, in another thread MrKnight just claimed that under 200 was low carb for him.
What Mr Knight claimed was that under 200g/day was low carb for any active, non-short male.
Yes, I understood that. I didn't think you were claiming to have some special low carb number just for you.
I don't personally think it makes sense to define "low carb" by "less than the SAD." I am undecided as to whether I think it ought to relate to some total number or to percentage of calories -- for once, I don't really care that much -- but I guess the percentage of calories method makes the most sense to me.
So what percentage? Lower than is normally recommended, so under 45%? Calling the common 40-30-30 macro "low carb" seems absurd to me, but I'm open to argument. Under 30%, under 20%? I don't care, although to me the there is a serious difference between "lower carb" and "puts one consistently in ketosis."
I think 40C / 30P / 30F is the Zone diet... I think.
The Zone diet isn't just 40-30-30, but the idea that you should make every meal in those ratios.
40-30-30 is a really common ratio beyond Zone. (It's what I currently like also, not that that matters.) ;-)0 -
I remember the Susan Powter era in the 80's when she said fat made you fat, not food. I remember always being hungry when I ate low fat, and I also gained lots of weight. Now that I eat a balance of macros, I'm not starving.0 -
85Cardinals wrote: »It was clearly a *kitten* study; anybody can see that. It's great how y'all treat these issues like politics or religion and argue about them so vehemently. I love that!
There are hundreds and hundreds of other threads out there on the forums if the intense debate and discussion bothers you so deeply. Self care.
lol, go get em, tiger! Preach it, sistah.
0 -
I remember the Susan Powter era in the 80's when she said fat made you fat, not food. I remember always being hungry when I ate low fat, and I also gained lots of weight. Now that I eat a balance of macros, I'm not starving.
I completely bought into that. I remember discussing with someone how a solid fat like butter or marbling in meat would end up solid in your arteries. Sheesh. Oh, and I remember skipping butter on toast and just going with jam, where as no I think the butter is probably the most nutritious part. LOL0 -
I don't low-carb....well, not intentionally...but can i recall the 80 you lost and 50 i lost and then give it to a girl i hate? (here's the pettiness coming out, lol)0 -
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »
Can i reca
I don't low-carb....well, not intentionally...but can i recall the 80 you lost and 50 i lost and then give it to a girl i hate? (here's the pettiness coming out, lol)
Not sure this is relevant but you have kitten legs growing from your forearm. If this is a result of your diet?!?<> maybe cease eating tuna?!? IDK.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Blueseraphchaos wrote: »
Can i reca
I don't low-carb....well, not intentionally...but can i recall the 80 you lost and 50 i lost and then give it to a girl i hate? (here's the pettiness coming out, lol)
Not sure this is relevant but you have kitten legs growing from your forearm. If this is a result of your diet?!?<> maybe cease eating tuna?!? IDK.
I HATE tuna.
The whole picture has most of a cat....there's a whole cat somewhere..but you know, i could use some extra legs on my arms.0 -
Honestly, I'm only here right now because I'm waiting for a friend to get here so we can go to the club, and uhhhh, I've been drinking for 2 hours. Hmm.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions