Cutting carbs is more effective than cutting fat...apparently.
Options
Replies
-
SergeantSausage wrote: »Only because when I eat cake, I eat 9 pieces and I don't stop until the Entire Pizza is gone.
is your short term memory affected ?
0 -
But adherence is a major player here, as well as how the individual mentally responds to a diet, not just physically. Looking at this particular piece in isolation, my guess is that for many obese people, using a "low carb" diet removes a lot of temptation to eat too much of many of the foods that got us here. Think about it - of course, this isn't meant to be a blanket statement because obviously nothing applies to everyone, but it's true in MANY cases of obesity, including my own - what are the foods that made a major contribution to us getting fat? Donuts, cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream, crackers...etc. And when you think of over-consuming calories at a meal, you think pancakes, pasta, cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, bread, fried foods, dessert, cocktails..right? Notice a trend? Starch and sugar-laden foods for the most part.
Many, many people are able to exercise moderation and still include these foods in smaller amounts while losing weight, and that's great - that's the best-case scenario. But I think that low carb works for some people in part because it completely eliminates the "ability" to even think about touching the foods that they used to over-eat. They're off limits. There's no "I'll just have one cookie" that turns into 6, because it's not an option. It's certainly not impossible, but it's a lot more difficult to mindlessly munch and blow your calorie goal for the day when you're eating meat and vegetables in front of the TV than it is Doritos and Oreos. That makes it easier to "stick to," and therefore more effective for those people.
Low fat on the other hand...there are tons and tons and tons of snack foods that offer little to no satiety that one can eat out of emotion or boredom to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of calories - that are "fat free" or "low fat." It's harder stay within your calorie goals if your diet is 60% foods that don't make you full.
I realize these are very very general statements. They absolutely do not apply to everyone. But I just think that adherence and mental as well as physical satisfaction while trying to lose weight is one of the most important factors in success, and for some people low-carb offers that to a greater degree than low-fat, or in some cases even just a balanced CICO approach.0 -
It's interesting, but it doesn't conflict with the CICO notion.
Basically, it comes down to what feedback mechanism you are using to control your food intake. For those who don't track calories, this feedback is internal - hormones like leptin and ghrelin, social pressure, psychology, etc. We all know the body isn't great at perceiving how much it consumed. You can eat 800 calories of cake and be hungry again in an hour, while 800 calories of, say, grilled chicken breast makes you full for a very long time, if you can even consume that much. Diet clearly helps or hinders proper weight regulation here. What these people are eating is also changing their calories in.
With calorie counting, we are replacing that internal feedback loop with a more accurate external one - not perfect, but most of us here are far more successful than when we let our bodies regulate our intake.
To that extent, the strategies that help non-counters are typically of limited utility for us; it can help us make more informed decisions about satiety and thus perhaps help us be more successful, but our method is a completely different type of feedback control versus what controls a non-counter's intake.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I wish these reports would emphasize health. But that's just me.
Losing weight can make a huge difference to health, but the bit I quoted from the article seems related to health too:
"any diet which reduced portion size and focussed on a healthy balanced range of fresh and unprocessed foods could form an effective route to weight loss. Dr Tobias said: 'We need to look beyond the ratios of calories from fat, carbs, and protein to a discussion of healthy eating patterns, whole foods, and portion sizes. Finding new ways to improve diet adherence for the long-term and preventing weight gain in the first place are important strategies for maintaining a healthy weight.'"0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
With lots of nutrient dense foods, I bet.cwolfman13 wrote: »i lost weight and maintain weight just fine eating a well balanced diet of carbs, fat, and protein...
And of course obsessing about low carb vs. low fat takes the attention away from that, as neither has a monopoly on nutrient dense foods and you can do both while focusing on them and both while ignoring them (although personally I'd have a harder time eating a poor diet while doing low fat, possibly due to personal preferences).
Quite a lot of nutrient dense foods are carbs, after all.0 -
but it's true in MANY cases of obesity, including my own - what are the foods that made a major contribution to us getting fat? Donuts, cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream, crackers...etc. And when you think of over-consuming calories at a meal, you think pancakes, pasta, cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, bread, fried foods, dessert, cocktails..right? Notice a trend? Starch and sugar-laden foods for the most part.
Most of these foods (with the exception of crackers, which I've never heard named as a trigger food before) and cocktails, are either also high fat or tend to be eaten with high fat foods (bread, pasta).
One thing is that low carb diets tend to require that such foods be cut out, but "low fat" diets aren't really low fat (more like below 30%) so you can still eat this kind of stuff -- the diet as a whole changes less.
This one examined a wide range of diets, but for example on extremely low fat diets like Ornish or Fuhrman you couldn't eat most of this stuff either, or would do so in a very different way (whole wheat bread, plain; pasta with a vegetable based sauce, no cheese, little olive oil). So it would present just as big a change.
I never get why people want to classify foods that about about half fat (like fries or chips -- both foods that are considered unhealthy more because of the oil typically used than anything about potatoes) as simply "carbs" and then slam the health benefits of carbs based on that. (Not saying you personally are doing this--it's just a pet peeve.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »but it's true in MANY cases of obesity, including my own - what are the foods that made a major contribution to us getting fat? Donuts, cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream, crackers...etc. And when you think of over-consuming calories at a meal, you think pancakes, pasta, cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, bread, fried foods, dessert, cocktails..right? Notice a trend? Starch and sugar-laden foods for the most part.
Most of these foods (with the exception of crackers, which I've never heard named as a trigger food before) and cocktails, are either also high fat or tend to be eaten with high fat foods (bread, pasta).
One thing is that low carb diets tend to require that such foods be cut out, but "low fat" diets aren't really low fat (more like below 30%) so you can still eat this kind of stuff -- the diet as a whole changes less.
This one examined a wide range of diets, but for example on extremely low fat diets like Ornish or Fuhrman you couldn't eat most of this stuff either, or would do so in a very different way (whole wheat bread, plain; pasta with a vegetable based sauce, no cheese, little olive oil). So it would present just as big a change.
I never get why people want to classify foods that about about half fat (like fries or chips -- both foods that are considered unhealthy more because of the oil typically used than anything about potatoes) as simply "carbs" and then slam the health benefits of carbs based on that. (Not saying you personally are doing this--it's just a pet peeve.)[b/]
No, I'm definitely not doing that. Fries and chips are definitely high fat as well, but within the confines of a low-carb diet, they are absolutely too high in carbohydrates to be included in any fashion. I wasn't trying to categorize any foods into exclusively carbs or fats, I was simply listing foods that are calorie-dense and prone to over-consumption for many folks that are also too high in carbs to include in any significant quantity on a low carb diet.
As I said, the best case scenario is to eat all food groups in moderation. I was simply trying to point out that from an adherence standpoint - which I think EVERYONE can agree is one of the top predictors of success, because it doesn't matter how perfectly tailored or balanced your meal plan/diet is, it is absolutely meaningless if you can't stick to it - low carb may make that easier for some people who tend to over-consume, since a lot of the foods that make that easy are high carb, and eliminating those as an option may mentally make the choice not to over-eat easier.
(Also, for the record, crackers are for SURE a trigger - I can put down a box of Cheez Its like I'm being paid to do it. )
0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »Only because when I eat cake, I eat 9 pieces and I don't stop until the Entire Pizza is gone.
is your short term memory affected ?
We have this construct in our language. Its called a conjunction, right? Maybe you oughta click that link ...
0 -
natboosh69 wrote: »http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11963385/Cut-out-carbs-not-fat-if-you-want-to-lose-weight-Harvard-study-finds.html
This was also one of the main stories on the news in the UK this morning, cue mass of low carb diets!
Why is it not mainstream information that cutting calories is all that is needed, not carbs or fat or whatever? Frustrates me so much reading cr*p like this.
So wait... I don't get it ? It's best to just Calorie count then cut carbs ? I thought it just depends on body type because not all the same things work for everyone.0 -
glisteninglight18 wrote: »
So wait... I don't get it ? It's best to just Calorie count then cut carbs ? I thought it just depends on body type because not all the same things work for everyone.
Calorie counting is the single most effective strategy for weight loss, but not everyone will do it.
For those who don't do it, reducing carbs helps slightly more than reducing fat in terms of enabling people to regulate their weight better.
Think of it like this - the best tool for financial stability is to create and stick to a budget. Not everyone does that. For those who don't, paying in cash instead of credit may help them reduce spending. But if you do stick to a budget, or if you're naturally frugal, it really doesn't matter.0 -
The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
That's 90% of ALL people, including the ones doing lowcarb. So I don't really see your point here.
And the only way you'd lose actual fat twice as fast would be if you created a twice as big deficit, low carb or not.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
2. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The problem is that not every solution will be the optimal solution for everyone. There is no doubt that some will fare MUCH better with less carbs (like insulin resistant people), but there is also evidence out there that some will fare MUCH better with more carbs. It really depends on the individual and his/her needs.
Calorie reduction is a simple concept, so that's why most people stop there. However, quite a few likely would do better to adapt a strategy that applies more than calorie reduction alone -- perhaps adjust macros based on insulin sensitivity/resistance, adjusting food groups based on adherence, etc. It really is quite a multi-factorial problem.
But, most people want a simple solution. So they opt for calorie reduction, reduction/elimination of carbs, etc. Most people generally don't like to think too much about such things -- they want simple solutions. I think simple solutions are great when they work. But, if you're struggling to lose or maintain a healthy weight, then it's probably time to look beyond the simplest of solutions to finding a more customized solution. But, not everyone wants to put in this sort of effort (and there is a lot of contradictory, confusing information out there).
Unless there is a good reason that you do poorly on a calorie counting diet, the simplicity is a huge bonus. It's not just people not wanting to deal with complexity - there are a lot of different studies showing how the quality of decision-making drops dramatically when people have more factors to consider.
For example, they gave doctors a case study with two suggested treatment options, one which was better than the other, but both were reasonable. The doctors did pretty well at choosing the better option. They gave a similar group of doctors the same case study and same options, but they added a third, obviously wrong option. Even though no doctors choose the wrong option, it significantly reduced the number that picked the best option - the mere existence of another option reduced people's ability to choose between the two reasonable options.
There are other studies on cognition that show adding additional criteria for evaluation drops decision-making performance in the same manner.
The goal of any good plan is to keep things as clear and simple as possible without being too simple to be useful.
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
That's 90% of ALL people, including the ones doing lowcarb. So I don't really see your point here.
And the only way you'd lose actual fat twice as fast would be if you created a twice as big deficit, low carb or not.
I'm not saying that low carb is the solution for everyone either. You're wrong about the deficit issue -- read my above post.
0 -
natboosh69 wrote: »http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11963385/Cut-out-carbs-not-fat-if-you-want-to-lose-weight-Harvard-study-finds.html
This was also one of the main stories on the news in the UK this morning, cue mass of low carb diets!
Why is it not mainstream information that cutting calories is all that is needed, not carbs or fat or whatever? Frustrates me so much reading cr*p like this.
Did you read it? Outside the headline and the study results, which were not all that significant, the entire article was about not cutting carbs or fat and instead focusing on health and portion size.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »but it's true in MANY cases of obesity, including my own - what are the foods that made a major contribution to us getting fat? Donuts, cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream, crackers...etc. And when you think of over-consuming calories at a meal, you think pancakes, pasta, cheeseburgers, fries, pizza, bread, fried foods, dessert, cocktails..right? Notice a trend? Starch and sugar-laden foods for the most part.
Most of these foods (with the exception of crackers, which I've never heard named as a trigger food before) and cocktails, are either also high fat or tend to be eaten with high fat foods (bread, pasta).
One thing is that low carb diets tend to require that such foods be cut out, but "low fat" diets aren't really low fat (more like below 30%) so you can still eat this kind of stuff -- the diet as a whole changes less.
This one examined a wide range of diets, but for example on extremely low fat diets like Ornish or Fuhrman you couldn't eat most of this stuff either, or would do so in a very different way (whole wheat bread, plain; pasta with a vegetable based sauce, no cheese, little olive oil). So it would present just as big a change.
I never get why people want to classify foods that about about half fat (like fries or chips -- both foods that are considered unhealthy more because of the oil typically used than anything about potatoes) as simply "carbs" and then slam the health benefits of carbs based on that. (Not saying you personally are doing this--it's just a pet peeve.)[b/]
No, I'm definitely not doing that. Fries and chips are definitely high fat as well, but within the confines of a low-carb diet, they are absolutely too high in carbohydrates to be included in any fashion. I wasn't trying to categorize any foods into exclusively carbs or fats, I was simply listing foods that are calorie-dense and prone to over-consumption for many folks that are also too high in carbs to include in any significant quantity on a low carb diet.
As I said, the best case scenario is to eat all food groups in moderation. I was simply trying to point out that from an adherence standpoint - which I think EVERYONE can agree is one of the top predictors of success, because it doesn't matter how perfectly tailored or balanced your meal plan/diet is, it is absolutely meaningless if you can't stick to it - low carb may make that easier for some people who tend to over-consume, since a lot of the foods that make that easy are high carb, and eliminating those as an option may mentally make the choice not to over-eat easier.
(Also, for the record, crackers are for SURE a trigger - I can put down a box of Cheez Its like I'm being paid to do it. )
Ah, Cheez Its. I forgot about those. Crackers to me mean Saltines or similar, which are tasty and all, but I'd only overeat them if I put cheese on them! ;-) I used to gobble down the goldfish, come to think of it, and for some reason haven't had them in forever -- kind of forgot about them too, hmm.
I agree with your basic point about focusing on what makes it easier on an individual basis. I've always been more prone to overeating on fat than carbs, but won't do low fat because, well, I'd be cutting out foods I love, so would get tired of it. So I focus on other strategies, like not snacking, and generally trying to plan my diet around nutrient-dense foods (many of which are carb-based). I can see why low carb would work well for others.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »
True, but considering that 90%+ of people regain the lost weight in 5-10 years, it would seem that it is not an effective longterm solution on its own for the vast majority of people. If you want to yo-yo forever, go for it -- it's really common. But I think that's far from an ideal solution. Plus, if you found out that you could lose the weight twice as fast if you adjusted your carbs, wouldn't you want to know that.
I think it's about working smarter (and what that means for any individual varies) rather than just working perpetually harder. But part of working smarter is that you have to be willing to figure out what the optimal (or at least better) strategy is for you. Otherwise, yo-yo forever.
1. People who continue to count calories in maintenance tend to be very successful at keeping it off. Much better than other groups, that's one of the habits of successful losers.
2. It isn't possible for me to lose twice as fast on an isocaloric diet that happened to be low carb. Physics is physics, my body is not capable of creating or destroying energy. The energy I expend comes from my food or my body's stores. It also actually wouldn't be safe for me to lose twice as fast as I am. Yes, if I went low carb and a higher deficit is lose more, but I could do the same with high carb and higher deficit.
1. Sure, but who wants to count calories for the rest of their lives? If that's part of the required solution, that seems less than ideal as I don't think most people want to do this and from what I've seen, most people don't. So there is a disconnect on adherence and that's a problem why it's not an effective longterm solution.
A: People who want to keep the weight off for the rest of there lives. There's a reason folks on MFP discourage people thinking they need to go on this diet or that diet and instead try to emphasize making lifestyle changes that will last for the rest of your life. Counting calories isn't really that onerous of a thing to do, especially with all the technology available to help you. If you can't spare 5 minutes a day to track your food, then perhaps you really aren't that serious about losing weight after all.3. That's not correct. There have been studies showing significantly different weight losses with different macros for those with different levels of insulin sensitivity/resistance -- on isocaloric diets with the same amount of protein -- only fat/carb levels shifts. If you understand how insulin resistance works, this actually makes a lot of sense because those people don't metabolize carbs (especially fast acting carbs) the same way an insulin sensitive person does. Their bodies have a different hormonal response which shifts the energy equation/fat stores.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
This is also a limitation of CICO -- great initial guideline, but it presupposes that certain factors and coefficients are in place to produce the same results. When those factors/coefficients shift (like insulin resistance, thyroid, etc.), the results shift and CICO appears to not work as well in its simplest application.
It's not really an issue of CICO not working, but that the application of CICO (a simple physics equation) to a complicated system (the human body) for weight loss is not actually that simple. It just can appear that way when certain factors/coefficients are constant but that's just an illusion.
That's why a lot of people will say things like "barring a medical condition, CICO, etc." -- but a lot of people have these medical conditions and just don't know it. Like nearly half of the US adult population has insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, and the vast majority do not know it.
CICO still holds, but as you say, the values we get from food labels and exercise apps may not be accurate for everyone. So knock 5% to 10% off your calorie goal for the day and try again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually you will find the equilibrium that matches your needs. Obviously if you have some sort of medical condition that restricts categories of food, of course you must follow that too but IMHO, far too many people read articles like the one above and then self-diagnose all manners of illnesses and syndromes. More often than not, these becomes their excuses for why they've never been able to lose weight: It's always the fault of those dastardly carbs, or fats, or gluten, or their thyroid, or gut bacteria, or chemicals, or whatever the latest fad is.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions