How and why carbs and a high carb intake will keep you fat!!
Replies
-
I am not saying that your trainer is wrong...but is your trainer a certified nutritionist? If not, then he/she is not really qualified to give you advice on your food. Now they may be right for your case...but just wanted to say that personal trainers are 99% untrained when it comes to nutrition. I've been through 3 different CPT "trainings" and it was all exercise with a very basic look at macros and calories. Just sayin.
Incidentally, the same applies to many doctors.
I agree. That's why I said "nutritionist" instead of "doctor." Although some doctors are trained in the area because it is electives in med school.0 -
But that is the exact point, this is not a science class, diet is not an exact science, there are just as many studies out there for one stance as there are for another. You said low calorie diet will NOT work best for everyone, that is your stance, SHOW ME, with empirical evidence that it will not. You cannot, because the burden of proof is too high.
If you have not read the studies posted that’s your fault, because I know they have been posted on threads you were involved in. They are out there you just have to look. Here is some homework for ya, there is a study out there that shows people can eat 300 calories more on a low carb diet, and lose the same amount of weight as those on a low fat diet. (I believe it was a low fat diet, been awhile since I read that one, or should I say, since I had someone read it to me)0 -
bump0
-
Because the adherence rate to a low carb diet is not 100%. For those people, inherently, a low carb diet is not best. Some people, like myself, thrive off carbs. Most of my family does. I could not stick with a low carb diet for more than 2 months.But that is the exact point, this is not a science class, diet is not an exact science, there are just as many studies out there for one stance as there are for another. You said low calorie diet will NOT work best for everyone, that is your stance, SHOW ME, with empirical evidence that it will not. You cannot, because the burden of proof is too high.
If you want I can post research showing that people could not adhere to the Atkins Diet long-term...?
Furthermore, I simply said low carb is not inherently the best calorie-for-calorie. Assuming protein is kept consistent between diets, and participants don't have any sort of hormonal resistance, there's nothing to suggest a low carb diet is superior to a moderate/high carb diet.
Furthermore my stance is the null hypothesis, again. Carb intake, all things equal, has little bearing on fat loss. YOU are trying to disprove that; YOU must provide evidence. You keep asking me to prove the null hypothesis. You do not understand how science works.
What a groundbreaking study considering 1g carb carried 3-5g water. The changes in water weight alone in a low carb diet would appear promising if someone interpreted that to be changes in body composition, which is a false interpretation. Eat low carb for a week then eat 300g carbs while still staying under maintenance calories - see what happens.If you have not read the studies posted that’s your fault, because I know they have been posted on threads you were involved in. They are out there you just have to look. Here is some homework for ya, there is a study out there that shows people can eat 300 calories more on a low carb diet, and lose the same amount of weight as those on a low fat diet. (I believe it was a low fat diet, been awhile since I read that one, or should I say, since I had someone read it to me)
For studies that use proper techniques to measure changes in fat/LBM: low carb diets do not reign universally superior.0 -
IMO, you can't say that this "isn't science class" and then ask for empirical evidence and then point back to studies that were based on some sort of science. It's also not that the burden is too high, necessarily. It's because that's not what these studies are designed to do. You won't find a study set up in that manner.
Again, I don't fully support either side of this discussion.0 -
Regardless of how many gms of carbs/day your body can handle, the man in the video has a valid point, and it's all about insulin production and insulin resistance. Some people are inherently more efficient with dealing with simple carbs, others (and probably more than realize it) are not.
It was not until I reduced my carbs and increased my protein that I got dramatic results. Before that, I was the skinny fat person on a treadmill, wondering why I could spend so many hrs in the gym, and not look more fit/defined. Now, after revamping my diet, I spend much less time working out, and I look and feel better than ever. Oh, and my bloodwork has improved too, btw.0 -
His point is really only valid to those with insulin resistance, really. Which is a minority of the general population.Regardless of how many gms of carbs/day your body can handle, the man in the video has a valid point, and it's all about insulin production and insulin resistance. Some people are inherently more efficient with dealing with simple carbs, others (and probably more than realize it) are not.
It was not until I reduced my carbs and increased my protein that I got dramatic results. Before that, I was the skinny fat person on a treadmill, wondering why I could spend so many hrs in the gym, and not look more fit/defined. Now, after revamping my diet, I spend much less time working out, and I look and feel better than ever. Oh, and my bloodwork has improved too, btw.
Do you think your results came from reducing carbs or increasing protein? Or both? Realize that's what we call a confounding variable, yet you attribute your toning up to reducing carbs when it's possible the reduction of carbs had little to do with it, and rather the increase of protein accounted for all the change. Not saying that's the case, just some food for thought.0 -
Furthermore my stance is the null hypothesis, again. Carb intake, all things equal, has little bearing on fat loss. YOU are trying to disprove that; YOU must provide evidence. You keep asking me to prove the null hypothesis. You do not understand how science works.
So when I make a claim, low carb is better, I have to prove that, but when you make a claim, low carb is not better, you don't have to prove that? Hmm, ok, here I'm changing my claim, low fat, moderate fat diets are not better. There does that qualify for,,,,, what was that big word? null Hippopotamus?0 -
What a groundbreaking study considering 1g carb carried 3-5g water. The changes in water weight alone in a low carb diet would appear promising if someone interpreted that to be changes in body composition, which is a false interpretation. Eat low carb for a week then eat 300g carbs while still staying under maintenance calories - see what happens.
For studies that use proper techniques to measure changes in fat/LBM: low carb diets do not reign universally superior.
Did I say the study was only a week long? Your homework is to find the study, not make assumptions about it.0 -
A good ratio for a normal person, is 40% carbs 30% protein and 30% fat. MFP is set to 55% carbs. You can reset it.
Exactly what she said!!!!! I went in and customized mine to 40/40/20 or 40/30/30.
40/30/30 is the Zone Diet and it works best for most body types.0 -
bump0
-
If you make the claim that low carb is the best diet then you have to prove it, as the null hypothesis would tell you that the low carb diet is not the best diet (remember: not the best =/= the worst =/= worse than others: simply means not THE best).So when I make a claim, low carb is better, I have to prove that, but when you make a claim, low carb is not better, you don't have to prove that? Hmm, ok, here I'm changing my claim, low fat, moderate fat diets are not better. There does that qualify for,,,,, what was that big word? null Hippopotamus?
I stand by the null hypothesis, which states that, generally speaking, the low carb diet is not the best. Will some people do better on it due to things like adherence or insulin resistance? Yes. But for the general population, where protein and calories are kept equal, to say a low carb diet > a low fat diet requires you to support that claim. I do not have to support my stance by disagreeing since I am siding with the null hypothesis, which for simplistic purposes means I am siding with the status quo.
Claiming that low fat and moderate fat diets are not better is fine. If you were to claim they are WORSE, however, then you would need to supply evidence. That would negate the null hypothesis.
This is statistics 101, man. You may not like it, but this is how hypotheses are formed, argued, validated, and turned into theories.0 -
Did I say the weeklong comment was regarding that study at all? I'm saying low carb often does lose weight quicker in the short-term due to WATER loss given carbs hydrophilic properties.Did I say the study was only a week long? Your homework is to find the study, not make assumptions about it.
You said there was more weight loss, and I'm saying that's not surprising whatsoever. That's expected.
Find me a relevant study lasting 6-12 months where low carb resulted in more FAT loss. The only studies where I've seen that done are in pre/post-menopausal, obese women with insulin resistance. Again, nothing groundbreaking there.0 -
So when I make a claim, low carb is better, I have to prove that, but when you make a claim, low carb is not better, you don't have to prove that? Hmm, ok, here I'm changing my claim, low fat, moderate fat diets are not better. There does that qualify for,,,,, what was that big word? null Hippopotamus?
Being purposefully condescending doesn't exactly do you credit.0 -
Just made him look more ignorant. It's okay, this is good, he's being taught how to do statistics and logical, formal argument.So when I make a claim, low carb is better, I have to prove that, but when you make a claim, low carb is not better, you don't have to prove that? Hmm, ok, here I'm changing my claim, low fat, moderate fat diets are not better. There does that qualify for,,,,, what was that big word? null Hippopotamus?
Being purposefully condescending doesn't exactly do you credit.0 -
IMO, you can't say that this "isn't science class" and then ask for empirical evidence and then point back to studies that were based on some sort of science. It's also not that the burden is too high, necessarily. It's because that's not what these studies are designed to do. You won't find a study set up in that manner.
Again, I don't fully support either side of this discussion.
Yes I can, in fact I did.
That statement and my insistence he provided empirical proof is based on a continuing debate between us. This is not science class, is in reference to the “studies” that have been posted that he laughs off, (the proof is correlational, anecdotal and observational) because they don’t meet his burden of proof. My insistence on empirical studies for his proof is to show that if he applies the same standard of proof to his claims as he does to ours, he falls short too. He has gone as far as to insist that no animal studies be referenced as proof. There is no way any long term empirical controlled, studies can be done on humans, with regards to diet. All, long term studies are self reporting, replete with assumptions and interpretation.
It’s a convenient stance to claim someone’s statement wrong, and stand back and say, “the burden of proof is on you, oh, and by the way for me to accept your proof it has to meet this criteria.” Personally I don’t care who the burden of proof is on, from a scientific perspective.0 -
Great, do as you please. But, if there is no science, there is absolutely no "proof" and nothing for you both to debate.0
-
So when I make a claim, low carb is better, I have to prove that, but when you make a claim, low carb is not better, you don't have to prove that? Hmm, ok, here I'm changing my claim, low fat, moderate fat diets are not better. There does that qualify for,,,,, what was that big word? null Hippopotamus?
Being purposefully condescending doesn't exactly do you credit.
Was that aimed at me, or the person here that assumes others don't know how science works?0 -
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that freerange and mynameisuntz didn't accomplish much at work today.. :laugh:0
-
Talk to your average person... most people don't know too much about science and how it works.0
-
His point is really only valid to those with insulin resistance, really. Which is a minority of the general population.Regardless of how many gms of carbs/day your body can handle, the man in the video has a valid point, and it's all about insulin production and insulin resistance. Some people are inherently more efficient with dealing with simple carbs, others (and probably more than realize it) are not.
It was not until I reduced my carbs and increased my protein that I got dramatic results. Before that, I was the skinny fat person on a treadmill, wondering why I could spend so many hrs in the gym, and not look more fit/defined. Now, after revamping my diet, I spend much less time working out, and I look and feel better than ever. Oh, and my bloodwork has improved too, btw.
Do you think your results came from reducing carbs or increasing protein? Or both? Realize that's what we call a confounding variable, yet you attribute your toning up to reducing carbs when it's possible the reduction of carbs had little to do with it, and rather the increase of protein accounted for all the change. Not saying that's the case, just some food for thought.
Actually, I know exactly how it happened, b/c I didn't do everything simultaneously. I could never, ever get rid of those stubborn last 10 lbs of fat, until I reduced my carb intake. Once I did that, my body just started losing weight like crazy (which of course, will make you look more lean/tone if you continue your exercise). When I started increasing my protein intake, and decreasing my cardio and increasing my weights, is when I started getting even more definition.
So, for me at least, it was the carbs that kept the pudge on, and adding the protein/weight training got me more buff once I lost that pudge.0 -
What? Is this in regards to low carb dieting? I don't laugh off the data, because the data shows low carb is not superior...I don't understand. When did I laugh off low carb data?Yes I can, in fact I did.
That statement and my insistence he provided empirical proof is based on a continuing debate between us. This is not science class, is in reference to the “studies” that have been posted that he laughs off, (the proof is correlational, anecdotal and observational) because they don’t meet his burden of proof.
The low carb data SUPPORTS MY POSITION. Why would I laugh that off?! It solidifies my argument. Again, for non pre/post-menopausal, elderly, obese women with cases of insulin resistance. For those populations, the low carb diets reign supreme. Which I have no problem conceding/
Want me to fetch you a 12 month study that compares the Atkins diet to the Zone diet, where the Atkins did NOT beat the Zone? But rather both diets in the long-term are comparable?My insistence on empirical studies for his proof is to show that if he applies the same standard of proof to his claims as he does to ours, he falls short too. He has gone as far as to insist that no animal studies be referenced as proof. There is no way any long term empirical controlled, studies can be done on humans, with regards to diet. All, long term studies are self reporting, replete with assumptions and interpretation.
What are you talking about, guy? What claims of mine are you referring to?
Animal studies are relevant in regards to the biomechanics of nutrition. But if you say, "hey look, we fed this rat carbs and it gained fat." I'm going to say, "yeah no duh, rats have a highly active de novo lipogenesis pathway, which converts carbs to fat. Humans don't. It's comparing the lifting abilities of a gorilla and applying it to humans."
EXCEPT I HAVE RESEARCH ON MY SIDE. I have research that SHOWS the Atkins Diet did not beat the Zone diet in a 12 month study.It’s a convenient stance to claim someone’s statement wrong, and stand back and say, “the burden of proof is on you, oh, and by the way for me to accept your proof it has to meet this criteria.” Personally I don’t care who the burden of proof is on, from a scientific perspective.
WHAT. ARE. YOU. TALKING. ABOUT? You are unreal. You have zero concept of science, empiricism, or logic. Zero. You don't understand burden of proof in the smallest amount. You actually want me to DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS, rather than you support them. My goodness.0 -
Haha, full time studying for the GRE, not much studying accomplished today :[I'm going to take a wild guess and say that freerange and mynameisuntz didn't accomplish much at work today.. :laugh:
Then hats off to you for experimenting, finding what works, and sticking with it.Actually, I know exactly how it happened, b/c I didn't do everything simultaneously. I could never, ever get rid of those stubborn last 10 lbs of fat, until I reduced my carb intake. Once I did that, my body just started losing weight like crazy (which of course, will make you look more lean/tone if you continue your exercise). When I started increasing my protein intake, and decreasing my cardio and increasing my weights, is when I started getting even more definition.
So, for me at least, it was the carbs that kept the pudge on, and adding the protein/weight training got me more buff once I lost that pudge.0 -
I am guessing you are NOT referring to this study: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.abstract[snip[
EXCEPT I HAVE RESEARCH ON MY SIDE. I have research that SHOWS the Atkins Diet did not beat the Zone diet in a 12 month study.
snip0 -
Nope. The results of that are interesting, though in the minority of results. Such as: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15632335 - same design with different findings.
I am guessing you are NOT referring to this study: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.abstract[snip[
EXCEPT I HAVE RESEARCH ON MY SIDE. I have research that SHOWS the Atkins Diet did not beat the Zone diet in a 12 month study.
snip0 -
The OP made a statement of which I find truth too. Only because I see the results I got from my daily regimen and of course I research things daily. I wouldn't believe anything the FDA has to say about food and diet...give me a break.
I follow a paleo lifestyle and notice that when I consume a higher fat, moderate protein and low carb ( only veggies ) diet, I lose fat without really having to do much of anything at all. I do however exercise once a day to P90X because I am sedentary and don't really leave my house much. I do little things around the house and take care of my boys. I see more muscle definition this time around then when I was following the P90X nutrition guide. I was always hungry when I consumed grain based carbs, no matter whole grain or processed crap. That's another problem about them. They are addictive. My cholesterol was 225 before I started this lifestyle. Even when I followed the P90X Nutrition guide. Once i've made the switch to this healthier lifestyle...It went to 170 in 3-4 months of cutting out the grains. I keep my carb intake to no more than 70grams on a bad day...but usually about 50g or less... my sugar is about 35g or less.
My fat consumption is about 90+ grams a day ( animal fat, avocados, nuts, coconut cream, coconut oil, olive oil, olives) and protein is about 60 - 80 grams. But the last 2 days I've actually went as much as 115 grams of protein. Just one of those days lol.
I am not knocking anyone's dietary lifestyle to each his own.0 -
Also see the study titled, "Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets."
Compares 30g carbs to 160g carbs.
Or, "Comparison of weight-loss Diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates."0 -
In the last couple of years, however, at least a dozen studies have been conducted in major medical and scientific research institutions throughout the world and published in top-notch medical and scientific journals that confirm what we and others have been saying for years—the low-carbohydrate diet is superior to the low-fat diet not only for weight-loss but for improvement of virtually all of the components of the metabolic syndrome as well.0
-
• At least a dozen studies have been conducted recently in major medical and scientific research institutions and published in top-notch journals that confirm the lowcarbohydrate diet is superior to the low-fat diet in multiple respects.0
-
Researchers from Harvard recently reported that subjects could eat 300 calories more per day on a low-carbohydrate diet than those following a low-fat diet and still lose the same amount of weight over a 12-week period.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
- 426 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