Low carb... Is it a diet fad?
Replies
-
I can't do it.
Personally, I found it expensive and my preference to eat fruits over vegetables played a big part. Now, I eat my carbs guilt-free, and finding it easier to eat below maintenance calories
. 0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Beside the bananas and whip cream, I hear walnuts are good too. Will nuts be tossed about? Cuz I'm in, if they are! Oh yea!
Walnuts?!? Who is Wal?!?
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Beside the bananas and whip cream, I hear walnuts are good too. Will nuts be tossed about? Cuz I'm in, if they are! Oh yea!
Walnuts?!? Who is Wal?!?
Walnuts are heart healthy, so they say. Who is they, I hear it now. The Walnut Board.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Beside the bananas and whip cream, I hear walnuts are good too. Will nuts be tossed about? Cuz I'm in, if they are! Oh yea!
Walnuts?!? Who is Wal?!?
Walnuts are heart healthy, so they say. Who is they, I hear it now. The Walnut Board.
hehehe The Walnut Board........I hear long walks are heart healthy.....
0 -
Putting my vote with, "I like it, but it's not necessary for everyone". I am doing low-carb high-fat to manage my triglycerides and curb hunger. It's not "needed" per se, but I will get improved numbers faster than not eating LCHF.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
{sigh} ok the response was in a chain of comments. so "healthy low carb diet vs non healthy low carb diet = same amount of healthy"... the concept I did not agree with. so healthy foods within your micros vs non healthy foods within your micros being the same I don't agree I don't think it's the same on the body. So if you get your carbs from more sugary foods than more fiber enriched foods for example, I don't agree it's the same as long as you stay in your carb limits. I don't think it's good to take in all tv dinners that are high in sodium but might still have certain nutrients, calories, etc. So in my opinion actual healthy foods are better to reach your goals. I don't know how much clearer I can make it but I know some people just enjoy arguing so I will bow out gracefully smh.0 -
Tried it out of curiosity (the science/studies behind it are interesting). For about 2 months.
Agree it works, I lost a lot of weight, but it's not for me.
I never felt completely satisfied being without the things I really like...bread, dessert, a lot of fruit.0 -
I have tried losing weight with the calorie counting and it does not work for me. However, I have great success with Atkins. I lost about 60 pounds back in 2005 with Atkins/low carb. I started it again this week and I am down 6 pounds in two days and feeling a lot better!!!! Atkins/Paleo/low carb is not a fad. It is just about finding what works for you and understanding that it has to be a change that you can sustain for the rest of your life.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
{sigh} ok the response was in a chain of comments. so "healthy low carb diet vs non healthy low carb diet = same amount of healthy"... the concept I did not agree with. so healthy foods within your micros vs non healthy foods within your micros being the same I don't agree I don't think it's the same on the body. So if you get your carbs from more sugary foods than more fiber enriched foods for example, I don't agree it's the same as long as you stay in your carb limits. I don't think it's good to take in all tv dinners that are high in sodium but might still have certain nutrients, calories, etc. So in my opinion actual healthy foods are better to reach your goals. I don't know how much clearer I can make it but I know some people just enjoy arguing so I will bow out gracefully smh.
This ^0 -
PeculiarLou wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
{sigh} ok the response was in a chain of comments. so "healthy low carb diet vs non healthy low carb diet = same amount of healthy"... the concept I did not agree with. so healthy foods within your micros vs non healthy foods within your micros being the same I don't agree I don't think it's the same on the body. So if you get your carbs from more sugary foods than more fiber enriched foods for example, I don't agree it's the same as long as you stay in your carb limits. I don't think it's good to take in all tv dinners that are high in sodium but might still have certain nutrients, calories, etc. So in my opinion actual healthy foods are better to reach your goals. I don't know how much clearer I can make it but I know some people just enjoy arguing so I will bow out gracefully smh.
This ^
Okay, list unhealthy foods and why they're not unhealthy in the context of a diet that meets all your nutrition needs. That obviously includes not overdoing any nutrients.
Sodium is a nutrient your body needs too, btw.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
{sigh} ok the response was in a chain of comments. so "healthy low carb diet vs non healthy low carb diet = same amount of healthy"... the concept I did not agree with. so healthy foods within your micros vs non healthy foods within your micros being the same I don't agree I don't think it's the same on the body. So if you get your carbs from more sugary foods than more fiber enriched foods for example, I don't agree it's the same as long as you stay in your carb limits. I don't think it's good to take in all tv dinners that are high in sodium but might still have certain nutrients, calories, etc. So in my opinion actual healthy foods are better to reach your goals. I don't know how much clearer I can make it but I know some people just enjoy arguing so I will bow out gracefully smh.
The problem is, if you can the majority of your nutrients from sugary carbs or highly saturated fats like bullet proof coffee, the chances you will address your nutritional needs is very slim. Its why regardless of eating style, we recommend addressing those requirements first and then have a treat if you can fit it in your calories.0 -
It wasnt for me. But different things do work for different people. I could never give up fruit or rice, bread, pasta, potatoes...I got headaches, fatigue, stomach issues... but a guy at my work is great on it every day! so it really depeneds... I dont think not eating fruit is healthy though.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
{sigh} ok the response was in a chain of comments. so "healthy low carb diet vs non healthy low carb diet = same amount of healthy"... the concept I did not agree with. so healthy foods within your micros vs non healthy foods within your micros being the same I don't agree I don't think it's the same on the body. So if you get your carbs from more sugary foods than more fiber enriched foods for example, I don't agree it's the same as long as you stay in your carb limits. I don't think it's good to take in all tv dinners that are high in sodium but might still have certain nutrients, calories, etc. So in my opinion actual healthy foods are better to reach your goals. I don't know how much clearer I can make it but I know some people just enjoy arguing so I will bow out gracefully smh.
I must have missed the comments where someone suggested you should eat nothing but TV dinners. Admittedly I was distracted by Hornsby's banana, but where was that post?
I think what people are saying is that it's entirely possible to eat a healthy diet in many different ways of eating, but that it's also possible to eat very unhealthily and that no one way of eating is inherently healthier.
0 -
Sure works to loose weight and rarely hungry. 3 weeks and I feel great.0
-
I have tried losing weight with the calorie counting and it does not work for me. However, I have great success with Atkins. I lost about 60 pounds back in 2005 with Atkins/low carb. I started it again this week and I am down 6 pounds in two days and feeling a lot better!!!! Atkins/Paleo/low carb is not a fad. It is just about finding what works for you and understanding that it has to be a change that you can sustain for the rest of your life.
I guess I'm not quite understanding this post. If eating low carb has to be a change that you can sustain for the rest of your life, why are you starting again?
0 -
All I know is I woke up this morning and the banana is bruised.
French Toast and bacon time!!0 -
beckygammon wrote: »It wasnt for me. But different things do work for different people. I could never give up fruit or rice, bread, pasta, potatoes...I got headaches, fatigue, stomach issues... but a guy at my work is great on it every day! so it really depeneds... I dont think not eating fruit is healthy though.
You can eliminate fruits and still be fairly healthy, pending you replace them with a variety of vegetables. But who would want that... fruit is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than veggies, 0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
{sigh} ok the response was in a chain of comments. so "healthy low carb diet vs non healthy low carb diet = same amount of healthy"... the concept I did not agree with.
No, I don't recall anyone saying that (unless it is the people claiming that low carb is inherently healthy or healthier).
What has been said is that both low carb and non low carb diets can be healthy or not, and good low carb diets are not healthier than good diets of other types. How I would define a good diet is one that includes all the nutrients one needs and is calorie appropriate and sustainable for that person. (And I think this is consistent with how ndj was defining it.)so healthy foods within your micros vs non healthy foods within your micros being the same I don't agree I don't think it's the same on the body.
Micros are micronutrients -- so if you eat an overall healthy diet that includes plenty of vegetables and other great sources of micronutrients in a varied amount and also add in some chocolate or ice cream or cheese vs. leaving out those foods and just eating something else (that you might define as more nutrient dense) that makes a real difference to how healthy the diet is? No, I disagree.So if you get your carbs from more sugary foods than more fiber enriched foods for example, I don't agree it's the same as long as you stay in your carb limits.
If you are low on fiber you aren't hitting macros and micros. However, the US Dietary Guidelines don't say all grains need to be whole grain for health. I usually do eat whole grains, but went to an Italian restaurant last night and had some white pasta. I also had plenty of fiber from other sources that day. I think it would be wrong and unnecessary to decide that my diet yesterday was bad or unhealthy because I included some white pasta (along with some vegetables and shellfish) in my dinner within my calories.I don't think it's good to take in all tv dinners that are high in sodium but might still have certain nutrients, calories, etc.
If you are too high in sodium for what you should have then yes, that could be an issue. I don't think you could very easily eat all TV dinners and meet your micros and the other things you need, and plus I don't think anyone would want to. But then you can also choose lower sodium TV dinners if you did. (For me this would not be a sustainable diet, so it would fail the good diet test from above.)So in my opinion actual healthy foods are better to reach your goals.
But whether a food is healthy or not often demands context. The pasta I mentioned was in a sauce that was likely too high cal, but had vegetables and shellfish, and I ate it with some rapini (which was also higher cal than what I'd make at home, but oh well). I made room in my calories for it by my other choices and because I exercise, and it was an enjoyable evening with friends. Healthy or no? IMO, because it fit well into my day, of course healthy (because the overall day was). If I made the same thing at home it would be easier to fit into a day (lower calories) and I'd definitely consider pasta with shellfish and vegetables (including greens) to be a healthy meal (and a good part of a healthy diet).
People are necessarily going to use a variety of foods, some more and some less nutrient dense and (importantly) with a different set of nutrients, to reach their goals. Kale may have more "nutrients" than cottage cheese, but if you are low on calcium and protein and don't mind a little sodium, cottage cheese may be a better choice. If you have eaten a nutrient-rich diet and are low on calories and want a little something, ice cream or chocolate also could be a perfectly good choice and not make the diet now unhealthy.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
{sigh} ok the response was in a chain of comments. so "healthy low carb diet vs non healthy low carb diet = same amount of healthy"... the concept I did not agree with. so healthy foods within your micros vs non healthy foods within your micros being the same I don't agree I don't think it's the same on the body. So if you get your carbs from more sugary foods than more fiber enriched foods for example, I don't agree it's the same as long as you stay in your carb limits. I don't think it's good to take in all tv dinners that are high in sodium but might still have certain nutrients, calories, etc. So in my opinion actual healthy foods are better to reach your goals. I don't know how much clearer I can make it but I know some people just enjoy arguing so I will bow out gracefully smh.
who in this thread advocated a diet of 100% tv dinners?
You totally ignored the example that I gave. IF you have two people and one is low carb and one is not and they both hit micros, macros, and stay in their calorie goal, why is the low carb person healthier?
There is NO way that either person could get adequate nutrition and hit macros eating tv dinners, that is just a straw man argument.
For the record, carbs are sugar, so if you are eating carbs you are getting your carbs from sugar, because carbs..
Please provide a lis of these unhealthy foods and explain why they are unhealthy?
There are no unhealthy foods, just unhealthy diets….0 -
I have tried losing weight with the calorie counting and it does not work for me. However, I have great success with Atkins. I lost about 60 pounds back in 2005 with Atkins/low carb. I started it again this week and I am down 6 pounds in two days and feeling a lot better!!!! Atkins/Paleo/low carb is not a fad. It is just about finding what works for you and understanding that it has to be a change that you can sustain for the rest of your life.
you are still adhering to the principle of CICO with atkins/low carb0 -
Please provide a lis of these unhealthy foods and explain why they are unhealthy?
There are no unhealthy foods, just unhealthy diets….
I don't go backwards for selective readers, but I will answer this...A triple whopper at burger king has 75 grams of fat, 27 saturated. Not good for the body even if you eat healthy the rest of the day and cut back on fat.
roast turkey ranch and bacon sandwich at arby's 2300 grams of sodium... only 800 calories so you'd still have to eat more that day.
Candies - don't know if u need a list of the ones that are pure sugar and artificial colors with no nutritional value.
movie theatre popcorn and soda - hopefully I don't need to explain this one.
restaurant chicken alfredo, fried chicken, pizza loaded with processed pork, high sodium tv dinners...
how many were you asking for?0 -
my body seems to absorb carbs... I try to limit myself0
-
Please provide a lis of these unhealthy foods and explain why they are unhealthy?
There are no unhealthy foods, just unhealthy diets….
I don't go backwards for selective readers, but I will answer this...A triple whopper at burger king has 75 grams of fat, 27 saturated. Not good for the body even if you eat healthy the rest of the day and cut back on fat.
roast turkey ranch and bacon sandwich at arby's 2300 grams of sodium... only 800 calories so you'd still have to eat more that day.
Candies - don't know if u need a list of the ones that are pure sugar and artificial colors with no nutritional value.
movie theatre popcorn and soda - hopefully I don't need to explain this one.
restaurant chicken alfredo, fried chicken, pizza loaded with processed pork, high sodium tv dinners...
how many were you asking for?
All heart attacks on a plate
0 -
Please provide a lis of these unhealthy foods and explain why they are unhealthy?
There are no unhealthy foods, just unhealthy diets….
I don't go backwards for selective readers, but I will answer this...A triple whopper at burger king has 75 grams of fat, 27 saturated. Not good for the body even if you eat healthy the rest of the day and cut back on fat.
roast turkey ranch and bacon sandwich at arby's 2300 grams of sodium... only 800 calories so you'd still have to eat more that day.
Candies - don't know if u need a list of the ones that are pure sugar and artificial colors with no nutritional value.
movie theatre popcorn and soda - hopefully I don't need to explain this one.
restaurant chicken alfredo, fried chicken, pizza loaded with processed pork, high sodium tv dinners...
how many were you asking for?
Here's where you need to be careful as the science on saturated fat and sodium is not settled. The traits in those foods you consider unhealthy are core to my healthy diet - over half of it is usually saturated fat and 4000-5000mg a day in sodium.
0 -
<--- is weeping about Hornsby's poor banana.0
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »<--- is weeping about Hornsby's poor banana.
It needs fixing0 -
JackieMarie1989jgw wrote: »It works for some people, especially people with PCOS or severe epilepsy, but you should be choosing a diet you can maintain for life. I personally think reducing "white" carbs and focusing on whole grains is good for your overall health and makes it easier to lose weight by keeping you fuller, but I really don't like to follow any diet that completely or nearly completely cuts out any major food groups. Many carbs are nutrient rich, and are more affordable and accesible for people from lower incomes. From a wider perspective, I dont believe the world population can be sustained without grains, grains are good for food stability.
Maybe that was a bit off topic but basically, carbs are not evil.
You can lose weight with them, you'll be healthier is you choose whole grains, youre more likely to maintain your diet for life if it doesnt cut out any major food groups.
0 -
Please provide a lis of these unhealthy foods and explain why they are unhealthy?
There are no unhealthy foods, just unhealthy diets….
I don't go backwards for selective readers, but I will answer this...A triple whopper at burger king has 75 grams of fat, 27 saturated. Not good for the body even if you eat healthy the rest of the day and cut back on fat.
roast turkey ranch and bacon sandwich at arby's 2300 grams of sodium... only 800 calories so you'd still have to eat more that day.
Candies - don't know if u need a list of the ones that are pure sugar and artificial colors with no nutritional value.
movie theatre popcorn and soda - hopefully I don't need to explain this one.
restaurant chicken alfredo, fried chicken, pizza loaded with processed pork, high sodium tv dinners...
how many were you asking for?
You have a lot to learn.
0
This discussion has been closed.
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