HOW MUCH CARBS TO LOSE WEIGHT?
Replies
-
People with insulin resistance have been shown to lose more weight on low carb. Insulin sensitive people have been shown to lose more on low fat / high carb.
People that oxidise less fat appear more inclined to obesity.0 -
Ok, everyone here is giving me different answers, and I appreciate them all ...just to be safe I'm going to do a 1400 calorie diet, and 100 gram carbs a day ....I'm assuming 1400 calorie diet would work? ....I know its below average .....and just to be clear, its not so much that I'm trying to lose weight, I just want to lose my belly! Lol0
-
People with insulin resistance have been shown to lose more weight on low carb. Insulin sensitive people have been shown to lose more on low fat / high carb.
People that oxidise less fat appear more inclined to obesity.
I would take studies like that with a grain of salt, because the body can't adjust metabolism more than a fairly small amount. It can reduce thermogenesis to a point by making ATP synthesis more efficient (downregulating uncoupling proteins and lowering your body temperature a bit) and it can make you feel sluggish or fatigued so you naturally want to move less, and it can make some of your movement more metabolically efficient, but each of these can only go so far - most of your body's metabolic processes are not optional, and your body somehow has to source all the ATP those processes need. Anything that doesn't come from the calories in your diet must come from something else - your body has to catabolize some kind of tissue, and the only real choices unless you're deep into starvation are muscle or fat. Your body's getting that energy from somewhere; if it weren't, you'd experience terrible symptoms (i.e. massive fatigue, lightheadedness, etc).
The other major problem with all studies measuring "weight loss" is that most of us don't really care about that exactly, we care about fat loss. Losing glycogen and water, for example, may shed up to six or so pounds, but it's not what we care about. Losing muscle tissue is actively something we want to prevent. Clearly not all pounds are equal, and very few studies actually look at tissue composition of what's being lost.0 -
I do realise that the blind cannot see so I'll leave it to the sighted to read the available data http://caloriesproper.com/insulin-resistance/
0 -
thebrainstorm215 wrote: »Ok, everyone here is giving me different answers, and I appreciate them all ...just to be safe I'm going to do a 1400 calorie diet, and 100 gram carbs a day ....I'm assuming 1400 calorie diet would work? ....I know its below average .....and just to be clear, its not so much that I'm trying to lose weight, I just want to lose my belly! Lol
A 1400 calorie diet for a male is not safe.
But you'll just ignore that, and do what you want. Go ahead and follow the low carb hype. Next year the hype will be something else and you can do that when you inevitably gain all the weight back you've lost on this crash diet.0 -
I would say 1400 is a bit aggressive and more likely will cause a male to lose more muscle mass than desired. And while people who are obese can kind of get away with it, the more lean you get the more likely you will struggle to address the requirements to prevent muscle.0 -
I do realise that the blind cannot see so I'll leave it to the sighted to read the available data http://caloriesproper.com/insulin-resistance/
Well, much of that is interesting, but none of those are particularly good studies.
- The only one that actually controlled diet experimentally had only about 5 people in each group, didn't control for body composition at all, and didn't look over that long of a time period.
- The large study that actually looked at body composition and over a long time didn't control for total calories - in fact there was no calorie restriction at all in that one. The results may tell a lot about satiety, but not about how effective calorie restriction is.
- The low carb groups weren't even really low carb by most definitions - 40% energy from carbs isn't really that low. By those metrics, I'm almost on a low carb diet, since I tend to average about 43% calories from carbs over time.
Fundamentally, though, the big problem I have with the "low carb = more fat loss for the same calories" idea is that there's no basis in biology or physics. Your body cannot create or destroy energy, it can only transform it, and if you eat X calories and burn Y calories, the other Y - X calories must come from the breakdown of bodily tissue, primarily fat. The amount of scale weight you lose can vary greatly due to degree of water retention or other lean mass loss, and many other factors, but fundamentally your mitochondria are oxidizing something to create that ATP.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Luvee_Dove5 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »
And you'd STILL have it backwards...
Yep.. calories determine fat loss... not macros. Macros can modify certain parts of the energy balance equation but that is it.
I disagree. Get your macros right, and the calories will fall into place. Too many carbs is not good for metabolism, especially as you age. You may be able to get away with it (high carbs) when you are younger, or if you are highly active.
Carbs become sugar in your blood stream, so try keeping them "low and slow": higher protein and fat and fiber macros, lower carbs (and sugar). So if your lean body mass is 140lbs, eat 140g protein. The amount of fat you take in will be just whatever is required to make your meals. My own fat intake is about 40-50% of my calories. Aim for high veggie intake and a serving of fiber supplement, so that your fiber intake is about 45g, give or take 5g. If you keep your Net Carbs (gCarbs - gFiber) low, it's much easier to lose weight. Of course if you are doing a lot of aerobic exercise, your carb intake will be a little higher in order to fuel that, but keep them minimal for fat loss.
Incidentally, eating this way will make you feel very satiated.
I'm 53. You're wrong.
I agree with you on protein intake, but disagree with you on carb intake, and how easy it is to lose weight, and how satisfying a particular macro ration is.
You know why? Those things vary on an individual basis depending on activity level and personal preference and who knows what else.
Even over the time I've been losing weight, it's changed for me. I've kept my protein intake consistent, but whereas I used to feel more satisfied with moderate carbs and moderate/high fat supplementing that? Once I became more active, the whole ballgame changed. I got very hungry. Fat wasn't filling me up any more. My body wanted carbs and is happiest now on a lower fat intake and a much higher carb intake.
And I still lose weight just fine, even at my age.
For you, it is wrong. It is true for some people - perhaps over half of all people. The only way to judge is to look at all people's health in the last years of their life and compare it to their younger years.
It was true for me. My insulin resistance went downhill fast in my late thirties when I was about 10-20lbs over a normal BMI. When I was younger I was running 1-2 hours per day, lifting weights, and carb loading. I lived on noodles, baked goods, and veggies. Now? That would push my blood glucose into diabetic numbers.
As you said, it varies on an individual basis
You citing that half of all people? That's a strawman. Diabetes and prediabetes and insulin resistance are not a cause for going keto or drastically lowering carbs except by choice. Moderting/managing carbs by balancing them with fat and protein? Yes. Cutting them drastically? Nope.
I'd be happy to get a diabetic into this if need be. @earlnabby @jgnatca
0 -
-
I would say 1400 is a bit aggressive and more likely will cause a male to lose more muscle mass than desired. And while people who are obese can kind of get away with it, the more lean you get the more likely you will struggle to address the requirements to prevent muscle.
This, especially since your profile says you only have 30lbs to lose.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
You citing that half of all people? That's a strawman. Diabetes and prediabetes and insulin resistance are not a cause for going keto or drastically lowering carbs except by choice. Moderating/managing carbs by balancing them with fat and protein? Yes. Cutting them drastically? Nope.
I'd be happy to get a diabetic into this if need be. @earlnabby @jgnatca
Once again, carb consumption is neither a "one size fits all" nor a "eat high or eat low" proposition, even for diabetics. Diabetics (and those who are leaning that way like pre-diabetics and those with IR) do really well in a wide range of carb consumption. The only thing that is common is the recommendation that they reduce carbs from their pre-diagnosis amount and eat a steady amount daily rather than cycling through high and low carb days (as well as eating protein and fat with each carb meal). How far to reduce depends on the person and how their body reacts. Personally, I keep my carbs to under 180 g a day. I typically eat 35% of my calories in carbs so I am more often in the 150-160 range with the rare high day if I overindulge or have something like a holiday or birthday with cake, dessert, mashed potatoes and stuffing (come on Thanksgiving!). I have the blessing of my Diabetic Educator PCP to have the occasional high carb day because the average blood glucose (as measured by the A1C) is more important than any daily BG reading and we do not live in a bubble. There will be cake, as a diabetic and someone who is still losing weight I just need to limit how often I eat it.
My A1C dropped into the normal range within 6 months of diagnosis by eating moderate carbs and it has stayed there for over a year, with no medication after the first 9 months. I know others who had to reduce their carbs further in order to reduce their A1C. So much depends on your body and how it reacts to carbs. There is no one answer. Many do not do well at all on low carb. Their energy is sapped and their immune systems are suppressed (I am not talking about the "low carb flu" at the beginning, I am talking about long term susceptibility to illnesses). Again, many do well eating low carb but just as many do not.
ETA: I test my BG at least once a day at random times and often several times a day. Eating carbs is not the only thing that raises my number. I can eat a high protein breakfast and have a higher number just before lunch than if I ate a slice of toast for breakfast. The difference is that the toast will give me a higher number one hour after eating, but will go down quicker. I also get a high number after exercising for a longer period of time (like my pool days where I am in the water for almost 3 hours between laps and an aerobics class). Going a long time without eating also will give me a high number. The exercise and fasting high numbers is because of a "glucose dump" where the muscles release glucose into the system in order to provide energy. When I eat, they will absorb glucose from the carbs in my food in order to have a store ready for the next time I exercise. Insulin will deal with what the muscles do not need and the body does not burn off.
0 -
I'm not talking to everyone when I say this, most of you helped me ...bit some of you are rude as %$#@ ....obviously I came on this forum for advice, so ifbim wrong, just tell me the correct answer..I'm not "going to do what I want” ....if 1400 calories aint snoughz then tell me the correct amount. I'm here for answers, not arguments between everyone. Let's just keep it simple! .....you are all discouraging me from even using this forum.!0
-
thebrainstorm215 wrote: »I'm not talking to everyone when I say this, most of you helped me ...bit some of you are rude as %$#@ ....obviously I came on this forum for advice, so ifbim wrong, just tell me the correct answer..I'm not "going to do what I want” ....if 1400 calories aint snoughz then tell me the correct amount. I'm here for answers, not arguments between everyone. Let's just keep it simple! .....you are all discouraging me from even using this forum.!
Your original post did inspire some argument, the topic of heavily restricting a particular macro, or food, tends to do that.
The takeaway you need from this thread is that there is science to losing weight: calories in must be less than calories out. Nutrients are important for your health (both macro and micro nutrients). If you have underlying medical conditions you need to work with your doctor to determine if there are things you need to limit or be more aware of. Finally, the way you choose to eat needs to be about personal preference, sustainability and overall satisfaction. That can be low carb if you enjoy it and it enables you to be successful, but it's not required.
As far as how many calories you should be eating, yes 1400 is too low for a male with 30 lbs to lose. Either set up MFP with your current stats and lose 1 lb/week (or even 0.5 lb/week) and follow the calorie recommendations it provides eating back a portion of your exercise cals OR figure out your TDEE and take a reduction from that (10% maybe) and then don't eat back exercise cals since it is included in your total estimate.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
You citing that half of all people? That's a strawman. Diabetes and prediabetes and insulin resistance are not a cause for going keto or drastically lowering carbs except by choice. Moderating/managing carbs by balancing them with fat and protein? Yes. Cutting them drastically? Nope.
I'd be happy to get a diabetic into this if need be. @earlnabby @jgnatca
Once again, carb consumption is neither a "one size fits all" nor a "eat high or eat low" proposition, even for diabetics. Diabetics (and those who are leaning that way like pre-diabetics and those with IR) do really well in a wide range of carb consumption. The only thing that is common is the recommendation that they reduce carbs from their pre-diagnosis amount and eat a steady amount daily rather than cycling through high and low carb days (as well as eating protein and fat with each carb meal). How far to reduce depends on the person and how their body reacts. Personally, I keep my carbs to under 180 g a day. I typically eat 35% of my calories in carbs so I am more often in the 150-160 range with the rare high day if I overindulge or have something like a holiday or birthday with cake, dessert, mashed potatoes and stuffing (come on Thanksgiving!). I have the blessing of my Diabetic Educator PCP to have the occasional high carb day because the average blood glucose (as measured by the A1C) is more important than any daily BG reading and we do not live in a bubble. There will be cake, as a diabetic and someone who is still losing weight I just need to limit how often I eat it.
My A1C dropped into the normal range within 6 months of diagnosis by eating moderate carbs and it has stayed there for over a year, with no medication after the first 9 months. I know others who had to reduce their carbs further in order to reduce their A1C. So much depends on your body and how it reacts to carbs. There is no one answer. Many do not do well at all on low carb. Their energy is sapped and their immune systems are suppressed (I am not talking about the "low carb flu" at the beginning, I am talking about long term susceptibility to illnesses). Again, many do well eating low carb but just as many do not.
ETA: I test my BG at least once a day at random times and often several times a day. Eating carbs is not the only thing that raises my number. I can eat a high protein breakfast and have a higher number just before lunch than if I ate a slice of toast for breakfast. The difference is that the toast will give me a higher number one hour after eating, but will go down quicker. I also get a high number after exercising for a longer period of time (like my pool days where I am in the water for almost 3 hours between laps and an aerobics class). Going a long time without eating also will give me a high number. The exercise and fasting high numbers is because of a "glucose dump" where the muscles release glucose into the system in order to provide energy. When I eat, they will absorb glucose from the carbs in my food in order to have a store ready for the next time I exercise. Insulin will deal with what the muscles do not need and the body does not burn off.
Thanks for chiming in, K. and sorry to drag you into this, but I think it's important to show that people with IR, diabetes and prediabetes still have the option to have carbs in their lives above super low carb levels if they choose to do so.
I have absolutely nothing against people who want to low carb. I have a problem with the idea that it's presented as a must-do solution for medical conditions where it's simply an option, nothing more.
Again, let me stress -- low carb, happy and loving it? More power to you. I'm making this point for people who might not be satisfied with looking at a life without carbs.0 -
thebrainstorm215 wrote: »I'm not talking to everyone when I say this, most of you helped me ...bit some of you are rude as %$#@ ....obviously I came on this forum for advice, so ifbim wrong, just tell me the correct answer..I'm not "going to do what I want” ....if 1400 calories aint snoughz then tell me the correct amount. I'm here for answers, not arguments between everyone. Let's just keep it simple! .....you are all discouraging me from even using this forum.!
How much do you need to lose? If it is less than 20 lb., you should plug in your stats to MFP and set it to lose no more than 1/2 lb a week and see what numbers come up. It is generally accepted that a male of average or taller height should eat no fewer than 1500 calories in order to maintain lean body mass (1200 for females). Losing lean body mass is what makes people "skinny fat". How you divide up those calories (carbs, protein, fat) depends on your personal preferences. You want to make sure you get enough protein to maintain muscles and enough carbs to fuel your day. The actual numbers will vary depending on you.
0 -
thebrainstorm215 wrote: »I'm not talking to everyone when I say this, most of you helped me ...bit some of you are rude as %$#@ ....obviously I came on this forum for advice, so ifbim wrong, just tell me the correct answer..I'm not "going to do what I want” ....if 1400 calories aint snoughz then tell me the correct amount. I'm here for answers, not arguments between everyone. Let's just keep it simple! .....you are all discouraging me from even using this forum.!
Sorry your thread got derailed. You don't have too much to lose from the stats in your original post, it seems.
WinoGelato gave you excellent advice. If you need more help, just ask. There's a good calculator here for figuring out your TDEE:
http://iifym.com/tdee-calculator/0 -
thebrainstorm215 wrote: »Ok, everyone here is giving me different answers, and I appreciate them all ...just to be safe I'm going to do a 1400 calorie diet, and 100 gram carbs a day ....I'm assuming 1400 calorie diet would work? ....I know its below average .....and just to be clear, its not so much that I'm trying to lose weight, I just want to lose my belly! Lol
Now you are talking about spot reducing. Unfortunately your body doesn't just lose wherever you want it to. It would be wonderful if it did!0 -
thebrainstorm215 wrote: »I'm not talking to everyone when I say this, most of you helped me ...bit some of you are rude as %$#@ ....obviously I came on this forum for advice, so ifbim wrong, just tell me the correct answer..I'm not "going to do what I want” ....if 1400 calories aint snoughz then tell me the correct amount. I'm here for answers, not arguments between everyone. Let's just keep it simple! .....you are all discouraging me from even using this forum.!
You haven't really given enough information for good advice.
What I've gathered is you are not that overweight and mainly need to lose some fat and perhaps gain some muscle (recomp). What that means is that you are better off with a lower deficit -- 1 lb/week or even .5 lb/week to prevent muscle loss (ideally while doing strength building exercises). You'd also want to take heed of the advice that eating at least .65-.85 g of protein per lb of bodyweight (goal weight can be used) is important if you want to maximize muscle retention. Beyond that, how much fat vs. carbs is going to depend on your lifestyle, how active you are, and personal preference, what makes you feel satisfied and most likely to eat a healthy diet and stick to your deficit, assuming of course that those are goals.
I'd ask MFP for a plan at 1 lb/week and lightly active (most are at least lightly active), and then see if the protein it gives you is within the range. If so, I'd go with that for a bit and adjust based on how I feel.
If you are concerned about T2 diabetes, talk to your doctor for advice.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Luvee_Dove5 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »
And you'd STILL have it backwards...
Yep.. calories determine fat loss... not macros. Macros can modify certain parts of the energy balance equation but that is it.
I disagree. Get your macros right, and the calories will fall into place. Too many carbs is not good for metabolism, especially as you age. You may be able to get away with it (high carbs) when you are younger, or if you are highly active.
Carbs become sugar in your blood stream, so try keeping them "low and slow": higher protein and fat and fiber macros, lower carbs (and sugar). So if your lean body mass is 140lbs, eat 140g protein. The amount of fat you take in will be just whatever is required to make your meals. My own fat intake is about 40-50% of my calories. Aim for high veggie intake and a serving of fiber supplement, so that your fiber intake is about 45g, give or take 5g. If you keep your Net Carbs (gCarbs - gFiber) low, it's much easier to lose weight. Of course if you are doing a lot of aerobic exercise, your carb intake will be a little higher in order to fuel that, but keep them minimal for fat loss.
Incidentally, eating this way will make you feel very satiated.
I'm 53. You're wrong.
I agree with you on protein intake, but disagree with you on carb intake, and how easy it is to lose weight, and how satisfying a particular macro ration is.
You know why? Those things vary on an individual basis depending on activity level and personal preference and who knows what else.
Even over the time I've been losing weight, it's changed for me. I've kept my protein intake consistent, but whereas I used to feel more satisfied with moderate carbs and moderate/high fat supplementing that? Once I became more active, the whole ballgame changed. I got very hungry. Fat wasn't filling me up any more. My body wanted carbs and is happiest now on a lower fat intake and a much higher carb intake.
And I still lose weight just fine, even at my age.
For you, it is wrong. It is true for some people - perhaps over half of all people. The only way to judge is to look at all people's health in the last years of their life and compare it to their younger years.
It was true for me. My insulin resistance went downhill fast in my late thirties when I was about 10-20lbs over a normal BMI. When I was younger I was running 1-2 hours per day, lifting weights, and carb loading. I lived on noodles, baked goods, and veggies. Now? That would push my blood glucose into diabetic numbers.
As you said, it varies on an individual basis
You citing that half of all people? That's a strawman. Diabetes and prediabetes and insulin resistance are not a cause for going keto or drastically lowering carbs except by choice. Moderting/managing carbs by balancing them with fat and protein? Yes. Cutting them drastically? Nope.
I'd be happy to get a diabetic into this if need be. @earlnabby @jgnatca
I disagree. Insulin resistance affects around half of all people sometime in their lives. I have seen well done studies that show people with insulin resistance tend to lose weight faster on a LCHF diet (I don't think I brought up keto). Yes, some insulin resistant people can still manage their T2D and prediabetes by moderating carbs with protein and fat, but not all. My guess is that most people would have lowered blood glucose on a LCHF diet where carbs are below 100-150g per day.
I have insulin resistance. On days when I eat more than 50g of carbs, my BG numbers are high for a day. Moderation doesn't work for all.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Luvee_Dove5 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »
And you'd STILL have it backwards...
Yep.. calories determine fat loss... not macros. Macros can modify certain parts of the energy balance equation but that is it.
I disagree. Get your macros right, and the calories will fall into place. Too many carbs is not good for metabolism, especially as you age. You may be able to get away with it (high carbs) when you are younger, or if you are highly active.
Carbs become sugar in your blood stream, so try keeping them "low and slow": higher protein and fat and fiber macros, lower carbs (and sugar). So if your lean body mass is 140lbs, eat 140g protein. The amount of fat you take in will be just whatever is required to make your meals. My own fat intake is about 40-50% of my calories. Aim for high veggie intake and a serving of fiber supplement, so that your fiber intake is about 45g, give or take 5g. If you keep your Net Carbs (gCarbs - gFiber) low, it's much easier to lose weight. Of course if you are doing a lot of aerobic exercise, your carb intake will be a little higher in order to fuel that, but keep them minimal for fat loss.
Incidentally, eating this way will make you feel very satiated.
I'm 53. You're wrong.
I agree with you on protein intake, but disagree with you on carb intake, and how easy it is to lose weight, and how satisfying a particular macro ration is.
You know why? Those things vary on an individual basis depending on activity level and personal preference and who knows what else.
Even over the time I've been losing weight, it's changed for me. I've kept my protein intake consistent, but whereas I used to feel more satisfied with moderate carbs and moderate/high fat supplementing that? Once I became more active, the whole ballgame changed. I got very hungry. Fat wasn't filling me up any more. My body wanted carbs and is happiest now on a lower fat intake and a much higher carb intake.
And I still lose weight just fine, even at my age.
For you, it is wrong. It is true for some people - perhaps over half of all people. The only way to judge is to look at all people's health in the last years of their life and compare it to their younger years.
It was true for me. My insulin resistance went downhill fast in my late thirties when I was about 10-20lbs over a normal BMI. When I was younger I was running 1-2 hours per day, lifting weights, and carb loading. I lived on noodles, baked goods, and veggies. Now? That would push my blood glucose into diabetic numbers.
As you said, it varies on an individual basis
You citing that half of all people? That's a strawman. Diabetes and prediabetes and insulin resistance are not a cause for going keto or drastically lowering carbs except by choice. Moderting/managing carbs by balancing them with fat and protein? Yes. Cutting them drastically? Nope.
I'd be happy to get a diabetic into this if need be. @earlnabby @jgnatca
I disagree. Insulin resistance affects around half of all people sometime in their lives. I have seen well done studies that show people with insulin resistance tend to lose weight faster on a LCHF diet (I don't think I brought up keto). Yes, some insulin resistant people can still manage their T2D and prediabetes by moderating carbs with protein and fat, but not all. My guess is that most people would have lowered blood glucose on a LCHF diet where carbs are below 100-150g per day.
I have insulin resistance. On days when I eat more than 50g of carbs, my BG numbers are high for a day. Moderation doesn't work for all.
Sigh. Over time, weight loss on either LCHF or any other macro balance evens out.
I am not arguing your experience, I am arguing the necessity of it for everyone in your situation because not everyone will want want to do it.
Dietary compliance and satisfaction trumps the speed with which weight is lost. For ongoing weight management, which is ultimately the most important factor in managing any of these conditions, compliance is the most important factor.
Speed means nothing unless it's important to you. That will vary by individual.
You're trying to take something you preferred individually as a solution for you and show that it's best. That's simply not the case. It's just one option available.0 -
@earlnabby and @PeachyCarol A low carb diet is usually defined as one under 150g or 100g per day, depending on the source. I think that's pretty close to what @earlnabby is consuming, although she hasn't defined herself as low carb.
I'll stop on this topic (of carb levels consumed by insulin resistant people) now. I've derailed this thread a bit already. I doubt the OP is diabetic so how we (pre)diabetics treat our disease probably shouldn't be debated here. Apologies.0 -
The goalposts being moved on what is defined as low carb are silly. The other thing is that even with 150, did you notice that she eats things no one with low carb would eat? Sugar, cake and the like?
You can moderate your carbs and not restrict foods even with diabetes and IR. I watched my grandfather do it his whole life.
My point was not to derail this thread either, but I am sorely tired of seeing aging, diabetes, prediabets, and IR promoted as needing a low carbohydrate diet to manage. A person can choose a low-carb diet to manage those things. If a person doesn't want to low carb with any of those conditions, they don't have to.
I really can't be more clear. To imply that I am arguing that this is all about choice vs. need is spurious.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »The goalposts being moved on what is defined as low carb are silly. The other thing is that even with 150, did you notice that she eats things no one with low carb would eat? Sugar, cake and the like?
You can moderate your carbs and not restrict foods even with diabetes and IR. I watched my grandfather do it his whole life.
My point was not to derail this thread either, but I am sorely tired of seeing aging, diabetes, prediabets, and IR promoted as needing a low carbohydrate diet to manage. A person can choose a low-carb diet to manage those things. If a person doesn't want to low carb with any of those conditions, they don't have to.
I really can't be more clear. To imply that I am arguing that this is all about choice vs. need is spurious.
Why would someone on low carb not eat some cake or sugar. low carb is about reducing carb intake and not eliminating it.
0 -
Added sugars and things like cake are not included on any low carb plan that I know of. Anyone eating super low carb gets their carbs from vegetables.
I've done low carb and read Atkins. I'm aware of the position on sugar.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Added sugars and things like cake are not included on any low carb plan that I know of. Anyone eating super low carb gets their carbs from vegetables.
I've done low carb and read Atkins. I'm aware of the position on sugar.
So you have to be on a bona fide and branded diet to be low carb???
Primal blueprint is a low carb plan - you can eat cake (in moderation) on that if you like.
0 -
So I see we need to define what cake means for the purposes of discussion, because even on Atkins, one can make an almond flour and egg white torte with Splenda and yes, have cake. Or a low carb cheesecake.
That is not, however, the cake one thinks of when one usually says cake. Wheat flour (or other starchy flours for us celiacs out there), butter or oil, eggs, sugar. Lots of frosting made with butter and more sugar.
You can eat that on primal blueprint?0 -
I've been a low carber for about 4 months and have lost 41 of my 72 total pounds doing low carb. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but eating 1600+ calories (not net calories, but total) and watching my macros has helped me more than eating a low calorie diet ever did. I have multiple health issues that have led me to low carb dieting, under the supervision of doctors. People respond differently to a low carb lifestyle (which is what it should be called - you need to remember before you start that if you decide to go back to eating carbs your body could not handle it well and you could gain all your weight back) my sister tried it for a month and lost absolutely nothing. She actually gained 3 pounds.
Not everyone's body is the same and I will never understand people's need to trash things because it's not the way they do things. Eat your bread, I'll pass. As long as we're both healthy - WHO CARES?!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I made a really good sugar free, crustless pumpkin cheese cake over the Thanksgiving holidays. I think it was about 8 g of carbs for 1/8th of the cake. It fit very well into my day and the next and the next and the next.... I was getting used to having sweets everyday and was starting to want more. I'm glad it's gone. LOL0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K 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
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions