low carb diet has been debunked
Replies
-
I know right? Who would expect a bunch of a calorie counters in the forum of a website based around calorie counting.
And it isn't about soundbites. There are low carbers who post and promote legitimately bad science. Meanwhile, your sound-bite versions of CICO are, in fact, still 100% true for the first one, and 90% true for the second one.
And there we go...misleading and frankly anti-science soundbite advice.
Choice of calories affects CO, for the same level of CI. That means choice of calories affects the deficit, for any given CI. That means choice of calories matters for weight loss, for any given CI.
I have no idea why so many here feel compelled to "simplify" things to the point of incorrect absurdity...but whatever the reason...it happens, a lot.0 -
I'm not directing this at you, lemurcat12, but adding to the conversation.
Some of the reaction also exists because some non-low carbers assume that every comment someone shares about why they chose to go low carb means that they think everyone has the same issues they have with carbs, or that they think everyone should go low carb.
Well, speaking for myself, that's not it at all. I can distinguish between "this worked for me" and people who explain how low carb helped them -- and I've frequently said that I think low carb helps some -- vs. those who make the issue about the evils of "carbs" in general or claim that you have to cut carbs to be healthy.I find that most of the regular low carb users on this site tend to be very realistic about low carb, and when they throw it out as a suggestion, it's just that: a suggestion. This is what worked for them.
I think this is true for a subset of low carb regulars on this site, typically those who have been doing it for a while. It's not the case for all, or probably even a majority, of the low carb evangelism here, and does not explain the comments we've been seeing recently about 50% carbs being unhealthy or the original human diet (whatever that means or matters) being keto -- which is not even accurate.The same thing applies here - just because you have biases about low carb, doesn't mean everyone else has to stop posting about it, or only post in a certain way, to keep you from having a "reaction."
Well, when did I ever say that anyone should care whether I have a reaction or not. I was trying to explain why these threads go off course. I don't care at all if someone wants to do low carb -- indeed, I encourage those interested to try it, I cut my carbs to below 100 at one point (and found it helpful at the time), and in another thread I've been informed I'm still low carb at 40% (although I disagree). Eh, whatever.
I find it rather insulting that you've said that I have biases about low carb, as I do not believe you can find a post of mine that suggests that.
0 -
The "CICO Cult" is just as bad in its own way. The "all calories are equal" and "exercise doesn't matter for weight loss" mantras are just as wrong as claiming low carb is the One True Path - but we hear them anyway, over and over again.
Hmm, I think I'm supposed to be a member of the CICO cult, so let me address this.
I don't think exercise doesn't matter for weight loss on an individual level. It is important for me -- although if God forbid something happened so I couldn't exercise I'm glad I now have a better understanding of how to deal with that on the intake side. I do think that there's a wide range in how much people need to use exercise and when it will help them such that saying you can't lose weight without exercise is false -- and that's the point people usually like to make.
As for a calorie is a calorie, that is often -- falsely -- claimed to mean that all foods are equal, that they have no nutritional differences, but of course that's not true, and the same people also usually say that it's important to get adequate protein (and define that as well above the RDA). That said, if someone is really obese, I do think the most important thing is losing weight and if that's easier by focusing on calories first, they should, because you CAN lose weight without changing diet quality even if diet quality is poor (and most people will end up improving diet quality because most will have to to be satiated on lower calories).
As for the argument that a calorie is not a calorie because macros affect how much muscle mass you lose, I'm skeptical that there's a significant effect for the obese independent of exercise, especially one that will influence in a meaningful way how many calories you will need when first out of the obese range or even when first out of the overweight range. I suspect it become more important as one is focused on getting leaner. However, I am interested in any sources to the contrary.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
:::cough::: the role and functioning of insulin :::cough:::
:::cough:::the level of carb restriction needed to address IR::::cough::::
Honestly, I have no issues with low carbers who just prefer low carbing. I do have issue with bad science, and false claims about how the body works and almost anthropormophizing it saying that it prefers this or that when it's an adaptable system.
For some people, low carb is a wonderful solution. That's awesome! Especially for all the bacon and steak they get to nom.
I get eating how you like. I'm a vegetarian, after all. Personal choice is where it's at.
Yes, this.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm not directing this at you, lemurcat12, but adding to the conversation.
Some of the reaction also exists because some non-low carbers assume that every comment someone shares about why they chose to go low carb means that they think everyone has the same issues they have with carbs, or that they think everyone should go low carb.
I find that most of the regular low carb users on this site tend to be very realistic about low carb, and when they throw it out as a suggestion, it's just that: a suggestion. This is what worked for them. It's no different than when someone shares that IIFYM or simply moderating intake worked for them. The claims that people are "demonizing" carbs or sugar if they suggest low carb is the claimant projecting their own beliefs about low carb, and rarely what the low carb advocate actually said. There are thousands of low carb users in the forums, and we see a handful who make outrageous claims; that's hardly "lots" of low carbers. It's a vocal minority at best, they just happen to be very vocal.
I'm not disputing that we have had some very colorful characters in this community or seen some outrageous claims (which are thankfully disputed), but "explaining the reaction" feels a bit like "blaming the person who used the word low carb to justify an inappropriate response based on personal biases and past experience with others." No one should have to accept other people's "reactions" to their statements when the statement is no way controversial. If a person has gotten to the point where every time they see someone mention low carb, they automatically think that the person thinks carbs are bad or that the person thinks everyone should cut carbs, then they are the one with the issue and they need to resolve it.
We often see people say that "just because you go on a diet, doesn't mean everyone else has to go on a diet to keep you in check." The same thing applies here - just because you have biases about low carb, doesn't mean everyone else has to stop posting about it, or only post in a certain way, to keep you from having a "reaction."
I live with 3 other people who eat truck loads of carbs and are healthy and happy. I don't ever think that what is right for me is what everyone else should do.
I definitely don't enjoy all the eye rolling and making fun of low carb that goes on in the forums, I know it works for me but I don't push it on others or think of it like a religion. It's just food... and yes, I do exercise and have energy, 20,000 or so steps and an hour long weight lifting session is normal for me most days.
0 -
How about quantifying this supposed effect. How much does choice of calories matter for weight loss, in your view?
And there we go...misleading and frankly anti-science soundbite advice.
Choice of calories affects CO, for the same level of CI. That means choice of calories affects the deficit, for any given CI. That means choice of calories matters for weight loss, for any given CI.
I have no idea why so many here feel compelled to "simplify" things to the point of incorrect absurdity...but whatever the reason...it happens, a lot.
0 -
I definitely don't enjoy all the eye rolling and making fun of low carb that goes on in the forums, I know it works for me but I don't push it on others or think of it like a religion. It's just food... and yes, I do exercise and have energy, 20,000 or so steps and an hour long weight lifting session is normal for me most days.
I don't think what you are describing happens. People don't seem to have any problem with low carb. Like I said, I encourage those who are interested to experiment with it, and when I do see a post that says that low carb is unhealthy I disagree. (Similarly, I think I said positive things about low carb early in this thread and disagreed with the claim that it had been "debunked.")
What I think happens, which some are mistaking for arguments or dislike of low carb generally, is that someone says "to lose weight you have to cut carbs, because otherwise insulin will store carbs as fat." So people respond and say that's not true. Or someone says "carbs are as addictive as heroin!" -- so people respond. Or someone says "cutting carbs is more healthy than not" -- so people respond. Or (in recent days) people say "before agriculture humans didn't eat many carbs and were in ketosis and it's not healthy to eat so many carbs" or claim that the reason people in the US are fat is "carbs" and specifically that "50% carbs is too high for humans to deal with." Or some poster says "how do I deal with craving the sweets I am in the habit of eating and trying to cut down" and posters pop up and say "you gotta cut out all sugar and, for that matters, carbs too."
These are the kinds of posts that I respond to and see many others responding to (I don't think they are "made fun of"). That does not translate to a dislike of low carb generally. (How many times do I have to say I think it works well for some people and that I see no reason to think it's unhealthy? Well, except for those who take it to extremes and start cutting out veggies.)0 -
I also will point out that when I said that there was no reason to assume that pizza was junk food (i.e., low nutrient and high cal) as it could be made in many different ways and the basic pizza lends itself well to a healthy, balanced macro meal with lots of veggies, lean meat, whole grain crust, and olive oil -- generally foods stereotyped as healthy -- I got essentially mocked by a few posters who insisted that OBVIOUSLY pizza was junk food and supported this with a quote from the USDA saying that pizza contains saturated fat. (Specifically, cheese.)
Yet when one of our low carb advocates claimed that butter (not so different than cheese) was a good source of nutrients no one disagreed, criticized, or mocked.
Doesn't seem to me that the low carb people are being treated worse.
For the record, I have nothing against butter. I eat it on occasion, although I do tend to eat olive oil more.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
Isocaloric = same number of calories
Translation: Mathematical models predict that the human body would minimize differences in body fat (percentages) in people on diets with the same number of calories, but different percentages of carbohydrate vs. fat.
I'm not sure how meaningful the study is, given the relatively small number of subjects and short time frames subjects spent on each diet (two weeks).
0 -
And there we go...misleading and frankly anti-science soundbite advice.
Choice of calories affects CO, for the same level of CI. That means choice of calories affects the deficit, for any given CI. That means choice of calories matters for weight loss, for any given CI.
I have no idea why so many here feel compelled to "simplify" things to the point of incorrect absurdity...but whatever the reason...it happens, a lot.
Because the ~7 Calories more TEF per 100 Calories protein instead of carbs or fat is so significant.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I forget where your ability to understand levels of analysis invalidates a tautological statement.
And there we go...misleading and frankly anti-science soundbite advice.
Choice of calories affects CO, for the same level of CI. That means choice of calories affects the deficit, for any given CI. That means choice of calories matters for weight loss, for any given CI.
I have no idea why so many here feel compelled to "simplify" things to the point of incorrect absurdity...but whatever the reason...it happens, a lot.
While different foods have different metabolizable energy. It affects things if you're trying to exact out last kilocalories in a metabolic ward. It is completely worthless argument when discussing what it actually takes to lose weight.
The real kicker? You're making things overly complex to make a point that actually again becomes incorrect at the deeper level. For losing weight, calorie is a calorie works. For metabolic ward studies, thermic effect matters. For the deepest level, a calorie is a unit of measure, and if you're arguing a calorie isn't a calorie, you might as well argue an inch isn't an inch. Though maybe you've had an inch isn't an inch argument at some point.
0 -
I forget where your ability to understand levels of analysis invalidates a tautological statement.
While different foods have different metabolizable energy.
You are still missing the point. This has nothing to do with TEF.
0 -
You said choice of calories affects CO for the same level of CI. If you weren't refering to the thermic effect of food, your explanation was shoddy. For someone that complains about excess simplification, the fact that you can't be bothered to actually state your entire point is amusing.
But please, do hone in on just one statement and use it to backpedal around your vague assertions. Or claim you're bored of discussing it. I'm sure you have some endurance activity to do.0 -
Also, where you quoted me, I said metabolizable energy, not thermic effect of food. There's a difference there, but I'll allow your simplification to stand.0 -
I recall being appalled when first logging at the amount of carbs in my diet.I always kind of chuckle to myself when I am told that I bash or trash low carb dieting. I lost my weight doing a low carb plan. However, I do confront bad science and people who makes bogus claims when it comes to the science behind low carb.
WOW!
I slashed carbs down to almost nothing compared to what I was eating before...and carbs were still 50% of my calories.
0 -
"tautological"I forget where your ability to understand levels of analysis invalidates a tautological statement.
In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence
WOW - A NEW WORD!
0 -
Who's up for some bacon?0
-
I enjoy reading threads where everyone is fighting over a statement made by someone who has not bothered returning to the thread in 5 pages or so. Lol0
-
-
So you're not talking about the 7 extra Calories per 100 calories of protein, but the extra 10 or so per pound of LBM you may have lost? Still oh so important differences.0 -
One. She crazy. Two. Wow...she looks like death. Whatever she is doing folks....don't do that.
Embarrassingly, I can remember doing her workout videos when I was in high school.
I agree. For someone wanting to stop the insanity, she has created a whole lot more by demonizing food.0 -
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »
And funny! I was just thinking of making some bacon...but I'm far too lazy, i think. It's like 100 degrees here and the idea of standing in front of the stove cooking bacon hurts...
Bake the bacon. I use thick sliced, so 25 minutes at 350F. Bake the bacon, steam (not boil) the eggs. Two things about which I actually listened to my Mom.0 -
The "CICO Cult" is just as bad in its own way. The "all calories are equal" and "exercise doesn't matter for weight loss" mantras are just as wrong as claiming low carb is the One True Path - but we hear them anyway, over and over again.
Every approach is susceptible to being reduced to a meaningless soundbite. And this being the internet, we know that anything that can happen, will happen.
That is it. Internet squabbles just don't happen at the gym or with my bike riding friends
This brand of insanity is reserved for some cyberspace inhabitants
I'm lower carb and sometimes I see things and wonder how anyone can think that.
To make people really go crazy I am low carb but do get most of my deficit thru exercise
I took in about 200 grams of carbs today. I burnt off 2100 or so calories, and all those carbs, on a 34 mile bike ride at about 18 mph.
So net carbs are all gone.
And did that long hard bit of exercise matter?
0 -
Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »I recall being appalled when first logging at the amount of carbs in my diet.
WOW!
I slashed carbs down to almost nothing compared to what I was eating before...and carbs were still 50% of my calories.
I think my carbs were 40-50% before. That's where they tend to fall naturally for me.0 -
Did I miss the post in which @Mr_Knight quantified how and by how much the choice of calories affects CO, for the same level of CI?0
-
I rode 42 miles yesterday. I don't know if I burnt off all my carbs or not, but I sure wish I'd burnt 2100 calories.KittensMaster wrote: »To make people really go crazy I am low carb but do get most of my deficit thru exercise
Why would anyone care? I eat higher than my sedentary maintenance (which is pathetic) to lose. Don't think anyone goes crazy.0 -
Meh. OP is trolling.
When I eat low fat I'm hungry all the time and can't stick to my calorie targets.
When I eat low carb, I get full easily and undershoot my calorie targets.
Therefore, low carb works for me. YMMV.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpkeQy29XPI
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions