The barb is in the Carb
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »Interesting how the LC folks always assume everyone not on LC is starving of hunger all day long.
Not everyone, just those who are overeating because the composition of their diet leads to excessive hunger.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »Carbs raise blood sugar generating an insulin response. If one is insulin resistant, the insulin stores what was glucose in fat cells, leaving cells still in need of fuel...thus hunger returns even though one in theory ate enough calories.
Just the opposite. In a healthy person, insulin will store excess carbs as fat and glycogen. In an insulin resistant person, the excess carbs linger in the blood longer. Insulin is a carbohydrate and protein storage protein.
The tendency for obese people to not feel satiated is probably leptin resistance, not insulin resistance. And yes, very sugary foods tend not to be very filling for most people, yet starchy foods often are.
In the studies that led to the creation of the "fullness factor", the things that increased satiety were lower calorie density, lower fat, higher protein, and higher fiber - other carbs don't even factor in except in total calories.
I fail to see that what you wrote = "just the opposite" of what I stated.
Have a link to these studies? I definitely am more satiated with fat rather than carbs. As are others.0 -
Pollywog_la wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »Carbs raise blood sugar generating an insulin response. If one is insulin resistant, the insulin stores what was glucose in fat cells, leaving cells still in need of fuel...thus hunger returns even though one in theory ate enough calories.
Just the opposite. In a healthy person, insulin will store excess carbs as fat and glycogen. In an insulin resistant person, the excess carbs linger in the blood longer. Insulin is a carbohydrate and protein storage protein.
The tendency for obese people to not feel satiated is probably leptin resistance, not insulin resistance. And yes, very sugary foods tend not to be very filling for most people, yet starchy foods often are.
In the studies that led to the creation of the "fullness factor", the things that increased satiety were lower calorie density, lower fat, higher protein, and higher fiber - other carbs don't even factor in except in total calories.
I fail to see that what you wrote = "just the opposite" of what I stated.
Have a link to these studies? I definitely am more satiated with fat rather than carbs. As are others.
Some are, some aren't. The studies suggest more aren't. It varies, which is why people should pay attention to what works for them and not assume it's what would work for others (or that others are hungry all the time).0 -
fat has over double the calories per gram of carbs or protein, and I find I feel pretty stuffed on a baked potato and beans lunch - a very low fat meal. I put the atkinsers claims to the test once and tried a greasy three-egg omlette for lunch once and felt rough all afternoon - and with that horrible greasy taste in the mouth.0
-
hamlet1222 wrote: »fat has over double the calories per gram of carbs or protein, and I find I feel pretty stuffed on a baked potato and beans lunch - a very low fat meal. I put the atkinsers claims to the test once and tried a greasy three-egg omlette for lunch once and felt rough all afternoon - and with that horrible greasy taste in the mouth.
That's also been my experience.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »hamlet1222 wrote: »fat has over double the calories per gram of carbs or protein, and I find I feel pretty stuffed on a baked potato and beans lunch - a very low fat meal. I put the atkinsers claims to the test once and tried a greasy three-egg omlette for lunch once and felt rough all afternoon - and with that horrible greasy taste in the mouth.
That's also been my experience.
Mine as well, especially when dealing with starches and lean cuts of meat.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »hamlet1222 wrote: »fat has over double the calories per gram of carbs or protein, and I find I feel pretty stuffed on a baked potato and beans lunch - a very low fat meal. I put the atkinsers claims to the test once and tried a greasy three-egg omlette for lunch once and felt rough all afternoon - and with that horrible greasy taste in the mouth.
That's also been my experience.
Same. I know most people aren't fans of the lowfat diet but I actually did extremely well on it back in the day. (I also did it before the plethora of low fat processed foods that flooded the shelves.)0 -
stevencloser wrote: »hamlet1222 wrote: »fat has over double the calories per gram of carbs or protein, and I find I feel pretty stuffed on a baked potato and beans lunch - a very low fat meal. I put the atkinsers claims to the test once and tried a greasy three-egg omlette for lunch once and felt rough all afternoon - and with that horrible greasy taste in the mouth.
That's also been my experience.
Same. I know most people aren't fans of the lowfat diet but I actually did extremely well on it back in the day. (I also did it before the plethora of low fat processed foods that flooded the shelves.)
Same here. I find a non-lowfat diet more sustainable, but that's because I like various high fat foods (although I find them satisfying in small amounts and don't need to overindulge) and would get bored after time on a lowfat diet. But I've done lowfat for periods of time and been less likely to be hungry, not more.0 -
I, too will do much better on a carb loaded meal than a fat loaded meal. Give me the French toast every time over the bacon/sausage and eggs.0
-
I feel more satisfied and less bloated on a primarily protein/fat diet. A dinner of a nice steak and brussels sprouts will leave me completely satisfied but still feeling good. A carb-heavy dinner also leaves me full, but feeling like a toad (and also much more likely to produce heartburn/acid reflux).
I tried low-fat back in the 80s - I lasted about two weeks, was miserable the whole time and had the worst imaginable cravings for beef, cheese, etc. The day I gave it up was probably the most enjoyable steak I've ever tasted! I did Atkins a few years later, was much more satiated and enjoyed it a lot more. I could easily live without pasta and bread for the rest of my life, but I missed tortillas (love Mexican food!) and rice (love sushi!). The biggest problem I had with low-carb were the highly uncomfortable and undesirable....uhhh, let's just call them 'digestive disturbances'....when I'd allow myself a high-carb cheat day. Uncomfortable and undesirable as in cramps and "let's just stay within about 15 feet of a restroom, shall we?".
I find the most enjoyable, satiating and sustainable (for me) WOE is IIFYM/everything in moderation. I love food, have a very healthy relationship with it and don't enjoy arbitrarily denying myself anything. Not saying it works for everybody, but it certainly works for me.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Interesting how the LC folks always assume everyone not on LC is starving of hunger all day long.
I just assumed that's why I observed that they eat all the time. I didn't check if they were hungry.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My understanding too is that it's not true, as is commonly stated on this forum, that you only burn fat if doing some kind of low carb thing. You burn what you eat, and that includes fat as well as glycogen (although during hard cardio glycogen will be strongly preferred). And of course this is also why fat burning vs. "carb" burning exercise is irrelevant -- the overall deficit is what matters and the body takes the fuel it needs from what is available.
You certainly burn more fat as a proportion on low carb, you have to as there aren't any carbs to burn. If all of that fat comes from food then you won't lose body fat obviously. Kevin Halls' 6 day thing did at least illustrate this point despite not reaching a stable state :-
As for burning what we eat, there are some people that appear to be good at storing fat in the presence of carbohydrate and less good at withdrawing it from stores. "This observation suggests that low postprandial fat oxidation may uniquely predispose obesity-prone individuals to accrual of adipose tissue." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2010.96/abstract
Other studies find elevated RQ indicative of preferential carb oxidation and tie that into obesity issues like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10953639
Exercising at high exertion will drain my glycogen reserves but doesn't immediately use fat for fuel. How the glycogen is topped up again depends what I eat.
0 -
If CI/CO works for you awesome. If others find reducing carbs helps them achieve CI CO balance easier then great for them.0 -
Keep below 120/day. You be good0
-
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.0 -
SamandaIndia wrote: »If CI/CO works for you awesome. If others find reducing carbs helps them achieve CI CO balance easier then great for them.
CICO works for everyone. Reducing carbs is just one method of achieving CICO.0 -
Here's my thought with low carb.....I have a good amount of stored carbs and fat on my body. 262 pounds of which maybe 60-70 pounds are fat and stored carbs. Why is my body storing it? because I eat more than I need to use for energy and living. So it's a reserve, well stop filling the reserve and start using it for energy and to live.....burn it. How you ask STOP eating carbs and force your body to burn the stored supply. Once the save supply is used a accurate calculation must be re established to figure out what you burn a day what you consume a day and formulate a balanced regimen that promotes maintenance. It's a long road that requires discipline mathematics and commitment. I am at the beginning of this journey and will post my progress. Aloha
That's not how it works. If you are in a surplus and eat no carbs you'll still store fat. If you are in a deficit and eat only carbs you'll burn fat. Weight loss is simply about calorie balance. The right balance of carbs, fat and protein can help with body composition as you lose and can help keep you in a deficit, but cutting carbs out is not the secret to losing weight.
Interesting how the CICO folks always leave out one factor: hunger. Try dealing with that on your calorie restricted, high carb, low fat diet. Good luck.
If you are losing weight, you are one of the CICO folks, right?
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
link please
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
link please
It's in Yarwell's post.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
link please
It's in Yarwell's post.
Ah, thank you, I didn't notice the link.
As I see, those (100g of carbs and 0.66 g/day/kg of protein) are just the EAR (Estimated Average Requirements), so not yet the RDA. In the following pages there are also the RDAs (130g of carbs and 0.8 g/day/kg of protein).
Here they explain how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is! Does this mean you've seen the light? LOL1 -
Ah, then Yarwell was the one that was off, not his link. On page 6 I just saw percentage ranges for acceptable intake, for an adult that's 20-35% from fat, 10-35% from protein and 45-65% from carbs, making a 1g/lb of lbm protein intake well within the recommendation for just about anyone.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!1 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?0 -
As for burning what we eat, there are some people that appear to be good at storing fat in the presence of carbohydrate and less good at withdrawing it from stores. "This observation suggests that low postprandial fat oxidation may uniquely predispose obesity-prone individuals to accrual of adipose tissue." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2010.96/abstract
That's not at all the conclusion of the study, and in fact the high RQ group in that study (the group that had greater weight gain in the following 2 years) was storing less carbohydrate as fat. All individuals in this group had a diet where there was no net body fat gain or loss, and all were fed a controlled diet with the same amount of carbs and fat. The group that had a high RQ, then, were directly metabolizing more carbohydrate into ATP, while the lower RQ group (the one less prone to obesity) was storing more carbohydrate as fat and then oxidizing more fat for ATP.
The authors' only suggestion on how the group predisposed towards obesity might be more successful from a dietary change was a low fat diet:
"Because all of the women in our cohort reported a family history of overweight or obesity in a first degree relative, high NSRQ may be a marker for nonmodifiable genetic factors affecting their capacity to oxidize lipid and carbohydrate. Studies are needed to determine whether these women may experience more success with weight maintenance by modifying their food choices to reduce fat intake or by modifying their physical activity to enhance fat oxidation."
That makes sense - if you are unable to oxidize fat quickly, you want to reduce dietary fat in order to be able to oxidize more existing body fat.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions