High fat los carb
Replies
-
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.0 -
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.0 -
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Yes yes. I know your personal opinion. You have mentioned on occasion....0 -
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Yes yes. I know your personal opinion. You have mentioned on occasion....
Not an opinion0 -
"If I raise my carbs my blood glucose raises"
Blood glucose is not of itself an issue, independent of any medical condition, it is a natural biological function of digestion and the concomitant interplay of insulin and glucogen ensures cells throughout the body including the brain get a steady supply of these blood sugars
Low carb is not even a necessary ubiquitous dietary requirement for diabetics, just carb awareness within each meal
There is nothing wrong with low carb but there are no magical properties either0 -
My blood work improved dramatically from one year's test to the next:
Cholesterol 176 (last year: 230)
Triglycerides 82 (LY: 193)
HDL 65 (LY 45)
LDL 95 (LY: 146)
VLDL 16 (LY 39)
Chol/HDL ratio 2.7 (LY 5.1)
My VLDL this year was actually below the lab's normal reference range. In addition, as measured at the doctor's office, my blood pressure went down from high normal (to sometimes higher than normal) and was at 110/64, the lowest I can remember.
This was after losing 54 pounds since April 2015, at age 59-60, while hypothyroid. (Since the blood test, I've lost more, for a total of 61 pounds.)
Oh, whoops, wait: That happened because of CICO (Calories In < Calories Out) and calorie counting. And it was simple (not always easy, but mostly).
I did *not* do low carb, high fat. If it helps you, go for it. But if you ask me, there's no magic.0 -
Under a nutritionist's care I was told to eat high protein, low carb, with a calorie deficit. I still have to count my calories; I still need to eat lots of veggies. Her explanation of this has not been that carbs are bad for weight loss, but rather the protein and fat are better at filling me up so that I am better able to maintain my calorie deficit. I have not been told to cut out carbs, but rather to carefully choose which carbs are worth it and which aren't as I try to reach my calorie goal. You can totally lose weight eating only spaghetti and toast, as long as you stay below your calorie goal. But you're going to be hungry.0
-
Under a nutritionist's care I was told to eat high protein, low carb, with a calorie deficit. I still have to count my calories; I still need to eat lots of veggies. Her explanation of this has not been that carbs are bad for weight loss, but rather the protein and fat are better at filling me up so that I am better able to maintain my calorie deficit. I have not been told to cut out carbs, but rather to carefully choose which carbs are worth it and which aren't as I try to reach my calorie goal. You can totally lose weight eating only spaghetti and toast, as long as you stay below your calorie goal. But you're going to be hungry.
I eat plenty of carbs and have no issues with hunger0 -
Under a nutritionist's care I was told to eat high protein, low carb, with a calorie deficit. I still have to count my calories; I still need to eat lots of veggies. Her explanation of this has not been that carbs are bad for weight loss, but rather the protein and fat are better at filling me up so that I am better able to maintain my calorie deficit. I have not been told to cut out carbs, but rather to carefully choose which carbs are worth it and which aren't as I try to reach my calorie goal. You can totally lose weight eating only spaghetti and toast, as long as you stay below your calorie goal. But you're going to be hungry.
I eat plenty of carbs and have no issues with hunger
I wouldn't either if i got to eat over 3,000 calories...0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Under a nutritionist's care I was told to eat high protein, low carb, with a calorie deficit. I still have to count my calories; I still need to eat lots of veggies. Her explanation of this has not been that carbs are bad for weight loss, but rather the protein and fat are better at filling me up so that I am better able to maintain my calorie deficit. I have not been told to cut out carbs, but rather to carefully choose which carbs are worth it and which aren't as I try to reach my calorie goal. You can totally lose weight eating only spaghetti and toast, as long as you stay below your calorie goal. But you're going to be hungry.
I eat plenty of carbs and have no issues with hunger
I wouldn't either if i got to eat over 3,000 calories...
Because larger or more active people don't get hunger relative to their size/activity?0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Under a nutritionist's care I was told to eat high protein, low carb, with a calorie deficit. I still have to count my calories; I still need to eat lots of veggies. Her explanation of this has not been that carbs are bad for weight loss, but rather the protein and fat are better at filling me up so that I am better able to maintain my calorie deficit. I have not been told to cut out carbs, but rather to carefully choose which carbs are worth it and which aren't as I try to reach my calorie goal. You can totally lose weight eating only spaghetti and toast, as long as you stay below your calorie goal. But you're going to be hungry.
I eat plenty of carbs and have no issues with hunger
I wouldn't either if i got to eat over 3,000 calories...
Not sure what that has to do with anything...you said carbs make you hungry and now you are moving the goalposts and saying its calorie intake level....
0 -
Under a nutritionist's care I was told to eat high protein, low carb, with a calorie deficit. I still have to count my calories; I still need to eat lots of veggies. Her explanation of this has not been that carbs are bad for weight loss, but rather the protein and fat are better at filling me up so that I am better able to maintain my calorie deficit. I have not been told to cut out carbs, but rather to carefully choose which carbs are worth it and which aren't as I try to reach my calorie goal. You can totally lose weight eating only spaghetti and toast, as long as you stay below your calorie goal. But you're going to be hungry.
Though I don't believe in "low carb" as an eating philosophy to guide myself, and don't eat "low carb" by any standard definition, much of what you're saying makes sense to me.
When I first started logging and trying to make more effective eating choices, I reviewed my diary and tried to reduce foods that didn't have enough benefits for their number of calories, either in nutrition or satisfaction. Many of the foods I chose to reduce were carb-heavy things that were not worth it to me - not that I'd consider them bad foods, but just not my best choices. And, personally, I found protein foods among the most filling, so I tended to focus more on those. (I know others differ in what they find filling.)
I don't know whether I'd be hungry if I ate more or mostly carbs, but I don't particularly miss the ones I reduced or eliminated.0 -
Great information!0
-
Under a nutritionist's care I was told to eat high protein, low carb, with a calorie deficit. I still have to count my calories; I still need to eat lots of veggies. Her explanation of this has not been that carbs are bad for weight loss, but rather the protein and fat are better at filling me up so that I am better able to maintain my calorie deficit. I have not been told to cut out carbs, but rather to carefully choose which carbs are worth it and which aren't as I try to reach my calorie goal. You can totally lose weight eating only spaghetti and toast, as long as you stay below your calorie goal. But you're going to be hungry.
I eat plenty of carbs and have no issues with hunger
I get to eat far less than @ndj1979 cos of our genders and relative size / activity level / workout schedule but I also eat plenty (50-60%) carbs as a proportion of my diet and have limited issues with hunger
The hunger I do feel is generally boredom or hormonal and I simply have developed different habits for dealing with hunger that comes when my conscious brain knows I have just eaten
This is where commitment, gym, shops, family, friends, books and/or a dog who is always up for a romp, comes in.
Low carb / keto / moderate carb / high carb are all ways to hit CICO0 -
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Couldn't that be from people being mindful and not over eating on possibly calorie dense foods. Then the LCHF diet just happens to to happen at the same time they start to pay attention.
That is possible, but so is improved health for some on a calorie matched low carb diet. Triglycerides tend to go down, HDL goes up, LP a improves, LDL tends to convert to pattern A, insulin resistance improves and blood sugars drop, skin can clear up and cognitive functions improve.
I feel healthier on a low carb diet. I can eat 2000-2500 calories per day, not exercise and not gain anything. My blood glucose stays good unless I eat carbs. No more reactive hypoglycaemia... All good for me.Couldn't what be? You will note the non specific, non sourced thrust of "some positive effects"
No point in discussing when it's made up info to support feels
That chart is pretty good though ...
The feels? Right._Terrapin_ wrote: »
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
So, #5 in the chart above? makes sense then. The chart that is.
Could be true for some things. Maybe why I am often not hungry likeI used to get. It wouldn't explain lab improvements or clearer skin or other health improvements... Could help explain increased happiness...
So the feels again.
0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »I know that losing weight is easy on the low carb high fat diet. No need to count calories and the pounds fall off. Has anyone used this diet and had blood work afterwards to check cholesterol and lippid values ? Thanks.
I had blood work before starting, then 1 year and 2 years after.
For me, they all improved.
Nothing was terrible in the first test EXCEPT my HDL (good cholesterol) was too low. And that is a bigger warning of possible problems than high LDL.
But that became in range, triglycerides went down and LDL stayed about the same.
Have you had blood work done yet to compare? I would recommend that for sure. That is a good way to test if eating this way works for you in measurable terms.
And I see the other posts about CICO. Sure, it plays a part. But that advice in and of itself never helped me.
What helped me is finding a WOE that didn't leave me starving, therefore likely to cheat.
Good luck.0 -
A few things you need to consider:
- You may or may not find it easier than a regular calorie deficit. I found it much harder, stress inducing, and obsessive, but some people thrive on it.
- You may or may not need to count calories. When I tried it and tried to eat to satiation like I would on a normal diet I clocked 2500-3000 calories a day because I'm a volume eater. So in my case, had I chosen to continue I would have absolutely needed to count calories for it to work. Some people tend to experience less hunger and the calorie reduction happens spontaneously without having to count.
- You may or may not have good blood work on such a diet. I have not experienced this personally, but I do know people who needed to tweak their saturated fat intake to make the diet work without ill effects, but I also know people whose numbers improved across the board.
In short, try it and see. Personal mileage varies. There is a possibility it might not be for you, and in this case don't be stubborn and start looking elsewhere, but on the flip side it could turn out to be the best thing that has ever happened to your dieting, just don't expect arbitrary miracles or somehow being able to lose weight on a very high calorie intake without a very high activity level.0 -
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Same can be said about CICO, what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips as long as you have a calorie deficit?0 -
PeculiarLou wrote: »
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Same can be said about CICO, what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips as long as you have a calorie deficit?
That is not how CICO works ... nobody has ever said that is how CICO works
Sure it's an umbrella term and people can have an "unhealthy" diet and still lose weight - see the Mcdonalds experiment and the Twinkie diet .. but guess what.. their blood markers also improved cos of the weight loss, so clearly the weight loss is the signifant area
In general, what I've seen by those who say any WOE but remember CICO comment it is always on the basis of hitting nutritional macro and micro and eating a wide ranging diet
the whole 'what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips' is the proverbial 'strawman' that gets people respondingamusedmonkey wrote: »A few things you need to consider:
- You may or may not find it easier than a regular calorie deficit. I found it much harder, stress inducing, and obsessive, but some people thrive on it.
- You may or may not need to count calories. When I tried it and tried to eat to satiation like I would on a normal diet I clocked 2500-3000 calories a day because I'm a volume eater. So in my case, had I chosen to continue I would have absolutely needed to count calories for it to work. Some people tend to experience less hunger and the calorie reduction happens spontaneously without having to count.
- You may or may not have good blood work on such a diet. I have not experienced this personally, but I do know people who needed to tweak their saturated fat intake to make the diet work without ill effects, but I also know people whose numbers improved across the board.
In short, try it and see. Personal mileage varies. There is a possibility it might not be for you, and in this case don't be stubborn and start looking elsewhere, but on the flip side it could turn out to be the best thing that has ever happened to your dieting, just don't expect arbitrary miracles or somehow being able to lose weight on a very high calorie intake without a very high activity level.
absolutely0 -
PeculiarLou wrote: »
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Same can be said about CICO, what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips as long as you have a calorie deficit?
CICO =/= IIFYM
nothing is healthy about that, but most people here who do CICO eat 80% healthy nutritious whole foods and ensure we get our micronutrients and protein/fat requirements, then you can fit in a treat or two so long as those are covered, it's only the stupid IIFYM bros whose diet consist of purely pop tarts, mcdonalds and lucky chams0 -
nosebag1212 wrote: »PeculiarLou wrote: »
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Same can be said about CICO, what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips as long as you have a calorie deficit?
CICO =/= IIFYM
nothing is healthy about that, but most people here who do CICO eat 80% healthy nutritious whole foods and ensure we get our micronutrients and protein/fat requirements, then you can fit in a treat or two so long as those are covered, it's only the stupid IIFYM bros whose diet consist of purely pop tarts, mcdonalds and lucky chams
How is that possible?
IIFYM would indicate that they cannot be having a diet that doesn't meet their macros surely?0 -
nosebag1212 wrote: »PeculiarLou wrote: »
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Same can be said about CICO, what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips as long as you have a calorie deficit?
CICO =/= IIFYM
nothing is healthy about that, but most people here who do CICO eat 80% healthy nutritious whole foods and ensure we get our micronutrients and protein/fat requirements, then you can fit in a treat or two so long as those are covered, it's only the stupid IIFYM bros whose diet consist of purely pop tarts, mcdonalds and lucky chams
You don't seem to know what IIFYM is.0 -
PeculiarLou wrote: »
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Same can be said about CICO, what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips as long as you have a calorie deficit?
That is not how CICO works ... nobody has ever said that is how CICO works
Sure it's an umbrella term and people can have an "unhealthy" diet and still lose weight - see the Mcdonalds experiment and the Twinkie diet .. but guess what.. their blood markers also improved cos of the weight loss, so clearly the weight loss is the signifant area
In general, what I've seen by those who say any WOE but remember CICO comment it is always on the basis of hitting nutritional macro and micro and eating a wide ranging diet
the whole 'what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips' is the proverbial 'strawman' that gets people responding
No, but this is how it works for some people, hence those people need restrictions. If I did purely CICO, you can guarantee I would save most of my calories for cake and chocolate!
God knows how many times I have seen, "you can eat whatever you want as long as you have a calorie deficit, why restrict yourself" Some people need restrictions and lack of choice.0 -
Not sure what that has to do with anything...you said carbs make you hungry and now you are moving the goalposts and saying its calorie intake level....
Not saying carbs make you hungry, I'm saying carbs aren't as filling as fats and you often require more food to feel satisfied and stay fuller longer.0 -
Not sure what that has to do with anything...you said carbs make you hungry and now you are moving the goalposts and saying its calorie intake level....
Not saying carbs make you hungry, I'm saying carbs aren't as filling as fats and you often require more food to feel satisfied and stay fuller longer.
I was not replying to you0 -
Not sure what that has to do with anything...you said carbs make you hungry and now you are moving the goalposts and saying its calorie intake level....
Not saying carbs make you hungry, I'm saying carbs aren't as filling as fats and you often require more food to feel satisfied and stay fuller longer.
satiety levels actually differ from person to person
some would do well on more fats
some on more proteins
some on a better mix of macros
there's no rule0 -
PeculiarLou wrote: »
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Same can be said about CICO, what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips as long as you have a calorie deficit?
That's not Cico and you are just making a straw man about eating pizza all day which nobody does...
And I clearly said hIt micros and macros and there is no way you can do that in the fake diet you suggested0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »I know that losing weight is easy on the low carb high fat diet. No need to count calories and the pounds fall off. Has anyone used this diet and had blood work afterwards to check cholesterol and lippid values ? Thanks.
Check out the low carb group, you might actually get an answer to your original question....http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group0 -
nosebag1212 wrote: »PeculiarLou wrote: »
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Same can be said about CICO, what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips as long as you have a calorie deficit?
CICO =/= IIFYM
nothing is healthy about that, but most people here who do CICO eat 80% healthy nutritious whole foods and ensure we get our micronutrients and protein/fat requirements, then you can fit in a treat or two so long as those are covered, it's only the stupid IIFYM bros whose diet consist of purely pop tarts, mcdonalds and lucky chams
IIFYM is not eating pop tarts and mcdonlads all day because it would be Impossible to hit your macros….0 -
Not sure what that has to do with anything...you said carbs make you hungry and now you are moving the goalposts and saying its calorie intake level....
Not saying carbs make you hungry, I'm saying carbs aren't as filling as fats and you often require more food to feel satisfied and stay fuller longer.
This generalization always baffles me. Different people feel full on different things. A bunless burger, or any meat without a carb for that matter, would not fill me at all unless it's 1000+ calories, but a carb-heavy bowl of oatmeal would. It's been 6 hours and I'm still full on 250 calories of braised cabbage and potatoes + a whole tomato.
No one is denying that restriction works better for some people. That's not the point. The above advice is usually given to someone who wants to have something but feels they can't because it's not "diet-friendly", and this fact is testing their resolve. For such a person, having something they like within their calories may be the difference between "dieting is hard" and "dieting is manageable", consequently helping them to stay on their diet instead of giving up. If someone finds restricting easier, then all power to them, and I doubt anyone would try to convince them to stop doing what's working for them. Now if said person starts to generalize that their way is the only way that would work for everyone, in some cases providing some magic properties, now that's where discussions usually start to get derailed.PeculiarLou wrote: »PeculiarLou wrote: »
Some positive health effects from a LCHF diet can be seen before any significant weight loss occurs. Health benefits can often be seen in optimal weight individuals who switch to a LCHF diet even when there is no weight loss.
Any diet that results in weight loss and improved body comp will result in better health markers...even the Twinkie diet improved health markers, because weight loss.
Lchf isn't necessary for anything, it is just a way to get into a calorie deficit
I think that is usually true that health markers will improve with weight loss. What about without weight loss? My blood glucose was turned around within days, and if I raise my carbs my BG rises with it. As far as I can tell, eating LCHF is the only thing that is keeping my BG low.
LCHF can be a healthier way to eat for many. Restricting calories is the main tool for weight loss. Weight loss and improved health are not the same issue in my mind.
thats great for you but does not hold true for OP or the rest of the population.
I don't see whats healthy about consuming 50-75% over the RDA for fat. And, any diet or WOE that results in hitting micros and macros is a healthier way of eating, so that is not just limited to LCHF, which for some reason you seem to think it is.
Same can be said about CICO, what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips as long as you have a calorie deficit?
That is not how CICO works ... nobody has ever said that is how CICO works
Sure it's an umbrella term and people can have an "unhealthy" diet and still lose weight - see the Mcdonalds experiment and the Twinkie diet .. but guess what.. their blood markers also improved cos of the weight loss, so clearly the weight loss is the signifant area
In general, what I've seen by those who say any WOE but remember CICO comment it is always on the basis of hitting nutritional macro and micro and eating a wide ranging diet
the whole 'what's healthy about scoffing pizza, cake and chips' is the proverbial 'strawman' that gets people responding
No, but this is how it works for some people, hence those people need restrictions. If I did purely CICO, you can guarantee I would save most of my calories for cake and chocolate!
God knows how many times I have seen, "you can eat whatever you want as long as you have a calorie deficit, why restrict yourself" Some people need restrictions and lack of choice.
On a side note, those who want to "save most of their calories for cake and chocolate" will soon find that it leaves them hungry and that they need to fine-tune their balance to function normally, feel satiated, and get to eat the things they like every once in awhile or even every day in small portions. This proverbial person who lives on chocolate likely only exists in theory or in proofs of concept, but in reality the vast majority learn how to balance their intake sooner or later to design the most sustainable personalized diet for themselves (and I can guarantee it almost never involves eating the majority of your calories in high calorie foods)
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions