to carb or not too carb?
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Low carb - I don't like having to log food!
Why would someone not doing low carb need to log food any more than someone that was??
They wouldn't - who said otherwise?
Your original statement:tennisdude2004 wrote: »Low carb - I don't like having to log food!
Seems to imply that if a person is doing low carb then they don't need to log. I am sure you are saying this because you have been LC for a while, you have a handle on how much you need to eat in order to reach your goals, etc, etc - but to someone just expressing an interest in going LC I think it is misleading to indicate that you don't have to log, that there is no need to keep track of those calories. It is very possible to be LC and not be in a deficit - logging helps ensure that someone who is trying out LC, is still in an appropriate deficit to be able to lose weight.
You like to read a lot extra into a statement, don't you?
Like everyone else on this forum I can only speak for myself.
Low carb is lot easier to control my appetite on than eating a higher carb diet.
I think that is the problem with a lot of people on these threads, they like to creatively fill in the gaps.0 -
I do a keto carb level. But it's doctor prescribed, and not for everyone. Luckily it works lifestyle/mentally as well as health wise for me.0
-
I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.
People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.
I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?
You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »
This specific issue? You mean because 50% of the population may have diabetes or pre-diabetes? The recent number saying that comes from recent changes to defining pre-diabetes which involve letting A1C and glucose level signify pre-diabetes. It unfortunately might be over diagnosing because they isn't necessarily enough evidence to say the measure they're using are predictive of being at risk for diabetes. The only early detection that has solid backing is, if I recall from a speaker on the subject, a glucose challenge, but those are procedures that take a fair amount of time, so they're using unproven methods.jennifer_417 wrote: »Unless you have specific health conditions, low carb is totally unnecessary for losing weight.
I hope you're realizing that we're approaching a time when up to 50% of a population may have these specific health issues, sometimes as early as the age of three.
Don't you think "unproven" is going a little too far? It is what the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), ADA (American Diabetes Association), Mayo Clinic and AMA (American Medical Association) use to diagnose prediabetes.
Sure, those standards are always shifting and maybe they'll have to adjust later, but those are pretty big orgs.
One thing to take into consideration, iirc what yarwell said, the US standards for prediabetes is significantly lower than that of the UK and other country so each country isnt doing apples to apples comparisons.
True, true, but my guess for that reason is because the US has a much bigger problem with diabetes than many other countries. I'm not sure how much the US and UK generally tend to align on medical issues. I know there is some difference for thyroid stuff too -- much harder to get natural dessicated thyroid in the UK (or so my UK friends tell me).
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.
People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.
I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?
You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.
I do agree that there is a lot of difference between what many people mean with low carb -- it can vary greatly. Also in how people look to restrict carbs -- total carbs, type of carbs (fast acting versus slow acting), with meals (certain macros), etc. Lots of different ways to do it.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.
People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.
I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?
You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.
Funny enough, there are several studies I have seen that align these macros to low carb as well. Personally, I don't look at macros for low carb as much as I do grams. For me, I always assumed around 120g or lower was low carb.
0 -
I'm not a fan of eliminating specific food groups. But I can understand that certain people may be inclined to do so for various reasons. I'ver never been fond of it though - could be because I was never good at it either! LOL
One of my nutritionists told me to focus on protein and the fats/carbs will take care of themselves, and I've found that to be pretty true. It's been really helpful as well.
I do agree with earlnabby thought - whatever works for you. If you can make that work for you and you're rocking it, then keep on rocking it!!!0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Low carb - I don't like having to log food!
Why would someone not doing low carb need to log food any more than someone that was??
They wouldn't - who said otherwise?
Your original statement:tennisdude2004 wrote: »Low carb - I don't like having to log food!
Seems to imply that if a person is doing low carb then they don't need to log. I am sure you are saying this because you have been LC for a while, you have a handle on how much you need to eat in order to reach your goals, etc, etc - but to someone just expressing an interest in going LC I think it is misleading to indicate that you don't have to log, that there is no need to keep track of those calories. It is very possible to be LC and not be in a deficit - logging helps ensure that someone who is trying out LC, is still in an appropriate deficit to be able to lose weight.
You like to read a lot extra into a statement, don't you?
Like everyone else on this forum I can only speak for myself.
Low carb is lot easier to control my appetite on than eating a higher carb diet.
I think that is the problem with a lot of people on these threads, they like to creatively fill in the gaps.
What I always find interesting on these boards is that people tend to keep these kinds of qualifying statements in their back pocket. OP's are new to MFP, or want to try something new to get better results, or read something they want more information about. A blanket statement like, "Low Carb so I don't have to log" is potentially going to be something appealing to someone just starting out, but can lead to frustration if that person doesn't get the results they are looking for because they aren't in a calorie deficit. Why wouldn't you just add a simple disclaimer, "I like LC because I've been doing it long enough that I don't have to log my foods, I know how much to eat for satiety as well as achieving a calorie deficit, but it took some trial and error to get there". I think that is helpful. I even think that sounds appealing if someone doesn't like to log. But the way you phrased it gives you the opportunity to imply that LC this magical solution where logging is not required for success, and then when someone pushes back, you can say, 'gosh you are reading a lot into that, I was only speaking for myself'.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.
People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.
I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?
You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.
Funny enough, there are several studies I have seen that align these macros to low carb as well. Personally, I don't look at macros for low carb as much as I do grams. For me, I always assumed around 120g or lower was low carb.
Hmmm... I can see doing it that way to a point, except ... for a sedentary petite woman on 1200 calories, that represents a pretty decent chunk of her diet.
For a 6'1" powerlifter? It's hardly a drop in the bucket.
Now I now this way of looking at it brings it back to percentages, though!
It's definitely a relative term sometimes.
0 -
I think you just really have to listen to your body. Why don't you try no carbs for a day, then see how your body reacts to different types. I was, (am) a rice-a-holic. haha i guess being filipino has something to do with that. Then I tried oatmeal. It works for me and doesn't give me carb burn out, but still gives me the proper amount of energy for my gym session the following morning. I always eat according to the way I'm going to train the next day. And i guess the general idea is, what works for me, may not work for you. Trial and error. What matters is that you're actively taking steps to manage your caloric intake, and tailoring your macros to your lifestyle.0
-
I think you just really have to listen to your body. Why don't you try no carbs for a day, then see how your body reacts to different types. I was, (am) a rice-a-holic. haha i guess being filipino has something to do with that. Then I tried oatmeal. It works for me and doesn't give me carb burn out, but still gives me the proper amount of energy for my gym session the following morning. I always eat according to the way I'm going to train the next day. And i guess the general idea is, what works for me, may not work for you. Trial and error. What matters is that you're actively taking steps to manage your caloric intake, and tailoring your macros to your lifestyle.
I would caution doing something for one day. You won't really see much effects. Like most things weight loss, you should try it for a month, especially if you are going keto, as it will give you time to switch energy systems.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.
People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.
I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?
And SAD isn't especially high carb either -- more like 50%. The problem with SAD is carb choices (and fat choices), according to nutritionist types, not carb percentage (and overall calories, of course).
I think I was eating about 45-50% carbs when I was gaining weight, and that's where I tend to end up when active and not doing a deficit too. When I'm losing I tend to cut carbs more than other things (although I cut fat too), so I end up more like 40% (although it really depends on how low a deficit I want). It would be difficult to do a higher carb diet while cutting -- even though maybe I'd lose faster -- since I tend to enjoy my diet more with plenty of protein and fat (well, what seems like plenty to me -- I'd be miserable trying to do 80% fat).
I have been thinking about experimenting with Matt Fitzgerald's carb recs for endurance sports, so maybe I will try to see if higher carb helps my running, although when I tried to up carbs earlier in the year I found it difficult to do so.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.
People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.
I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?
You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.
Funny enough, there are several studies I have seen that align these macros to low carb as well. Personally, I don't look at macros for low carb as much as I do grams. For me, I always assumed around 120g or lower was low carb.
I think of under 100 as lower carb.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Low carb - I don't like having to log food!
Why would someone not doing low carb need to log food any more than someone that was??
They wouldn't - who said otherwise?
Your original statement:tennisdude2004 wrote: »Low carb - I don't like having to log food!
Seems to imply that if a person is doing low carb then they don't need to log. I am sure you are saying this because you have been LC for a while, you have a handle on how much you need to eat in order to reach your goals, etc, etc - but to someone just expressing an interest in going LC I think it is misleading to indicate that you don't have to log, that there is no need to keep track of those calories. It is very possible to be LC and not be in a deficit - logging helps ensure that someone who is trying out LC, is still in an appropriate deficit to be able to lose weight.
Studies have shown that people spontaneously eat fewer calories on low carb diet.
0 -
True. I'm just here for the chit-chat and to learn from the mistakes of others. It helps me recognize where I went wrong before (eg demonizing carbs, not eating or exercising enough etc), why it failed and what not to do again. Even though I've succeeded in losing and maintaining, and implemented habits I can stick with long term, one can never be too vigilant.lindsey1979 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.
Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?
Track exercise? The forums? The friends?
While it can be used to track macros, you can also remove all macros from the list of things being counted so it's no more a macro counting site than it is a micro counting site.
Okay, while I understand that there are other uses for the site, I guess I don't understand why someone would come into the forums and question why others would find it helpful to track macros and/or calories.
But then again, there are some people on this forum who seem to need 2 argue with every other poster in almost every thread.
I guess I'll just never understand.
I think the point is that yes, tracking of cals/macros is a useful part of this site. But it's not the ONLY useful purpose -- some come for many other reasons too, and that's okay. So some may not choose to use the cal/macro tracking feature and still reap considerable value from this site.
As for tracking, I prefer to track the vitamins/mineral content of my food so that I can make sure I'm eating nutrient dense foods and then make them staples. I only do this periodically when I add/subtract something. The problem with MFP is it has 6 (Vits A&C, iron, potassium, calcium, sodium) while other free sites like Fitday has a list of nearly 20. And each food item in the database also shows how much of those 20 vit/min are in each food. Much more useful information in my opinion.
For weight loss, it's definitely important to track total calories or get to a point where you can lose/maintain weight without tracking daily. But macronutrients are far less important than micronutrientsif the goal is optimal health. 2 people can eat a 1700 calorie diet with similar macros but one can be more nutrient dense than the other. So if a tracker like MFP can't distinguish between the two, it's useless in my book. The forum is probably the best though.0 -
healthyrachel1979 wrote: »Thoughts?
Carbohydrates supply glucose, proteins supply amino acids and fats supply fatty acids.
Your body can make its own glucose as required, but must get amino acids and fatty acids from your diet.
If you are picking the least important fuel to cut calories, restrict the carbohydrates.
0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Low carb - I don't like having to log food!
Why would someone not doing low carb need to log food any more than someone that was??
They wouldn't - who said otherwise?
Your original statement:tennisdude2004 wrote: »Low carb - I don't like having to log food!
Seems to imply that if a person is doing low carb then they don't need to log. I am sure you are saying this because you have been LC for a while, you have a handle on how much you need to eat in order to reach your goals, etc, etc - but to someone just expressing an interest in going LC I think it is misleading to indicate that you don't have to log, that there is no need to keep track of those calories. It is very possible to be LC and not be in a deficit - logging helps ensure that someone who is trying out LC, is still in an appropriate deficit to be able to lose weight.
Studies have shown that people spontaneously eat fewer calories on low carb diet.
What studies?
Here's one http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa07086810 -
I'm taking the term unproven from this guy's speech, in which he strongly feels the pre-diabetic epidemic is generally a result of a rush to over-diagnose health issues:lindsey1979 wrote: »
This specific issue? You mean because 50% of the population may have diabetes or pre-diabetes? The recent number saying that comes from recent changes to defining pre-diabetes which involve letting A1C and glucose level signify pre-diabetes. It unfortunately might be over diagnosing because they isn't necessarily enough evidence to say the measure they're using are predictive of being at risk for diabetes. The only early detection that has solid backing is, if I recall from a speaker on the subject, a glucose challenge, but those are procedures that take a fair amount of time, so they're using unproven methods.jennifer_417 wrote: »Unless you have specific health conditions, low carb is totally unnecessary for losing weight.
I hope you're realizing that we're approaching a time when up to 50% of a population may have these specific health issues, sometimes as early as the age of three.
Don't you think "unproven" is going a little too far? It is what the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), ADA (American Diabetes Association), Mayo Clinic and AMA (American Medical Association) use to diagnose prediabetes.
Sure, those standards are always shifting and maybe they'll have to adjust later, but those are pretty big orgs.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=l3pVadh4yzM
And as he presented it, no, I don't find unproven going to far. His citations were that there is no proven predictive power in A1C in the ranges they use. The people recommending it are doing so because it is cheap and quick. If they wanted to use a test with the most predictive power, they'd do a glucose challenge. No one wants to have to spend 4 hours intermittently testing people's glucose to use it as a way to tell them, "hey, watch what you're eating or you'll be at risk of being at risk for diabetes."0 -
Also, giving credit where due, shout out to @lemurcat12 for the youtube video I linked above.0
-
If you're over weight (over fat), you kind of have an on-hand supply of fatty acids, well technically it has stores of lipids that can be converted into fatty acids rather easily.healthyrachel1979 wrote: »Thoughts?
Carbohydrates supply glucose, proteins supply amino acids and fats supply fatty acids.
Your body can make its own glucose as required, but must get amino acids and fatty acids from your diet.
If you are picking the least important fuel to cut calories, restrict the carbohydrates.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions