Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Low carb and vegetables
Options
Replies
-
Now, deeper than that, I can't, outside of a rather convoluted diet, feed someone just fats, sugar molecules, amino acids and vitamin and mineral pills.
So now we have foods, and foods have various compositions of those things plus a lot of water. Your body has to spend a bit of energy itself just unlocking the way the food itself could have created storage forms of the food. Sometimes the human body itself doesn't even have the chemistry - this could either pass through entirely undigested or often our gut bacteria do have the enzymes and partner with us, we bring the lunch, they give us part of the energy, breaking down resistant starches and other fiber materials. At this level suddenly the calories in a carbohydrate that are ultimately deliverable to the human body are variable based on the food, and the species of bacteria in the gut.0 -
Wait, so when someone posts "HALP, I CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT NO MATTER WHAT I DO!!2124!" someone doesn't chime in and suggest cutting out sugar and carbs?
Are we on the same forums?
We may not be looking at them from the same bias.
In general I do not see people jump in to generalist questions / threads and recommend low carb , no. Cutting out sugar maybe more so, but also not prevalent. Someone with PCOS or Diabetic issues etc are more likely to be suggested to try reducing carbs.
It is on the other hand a very rare occasion where someone asking for help with, or about, low carb doesn't get at least one and more likely five replies to the effect of "it isn't necessary" etc etc.
If I had the time and the motivation I would document this as a study of forum psychology or something, but its OT for this thread anyway.
Seems to me some people are attacking ghosts - challenge carnivores that I haven't seen. Perhaps they imagine them and have a go even though they aren't there. Maybe it's a vegetarian thing to confront anything that might be pro-meat.
Or maybe they lurk in the Low Carb forum until their safety valves are about to blow then go out looking for a target in the main forums.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »For me, CICO led to the all too familiar roller coaster. That's one reason why I'm questioning it now. I'm not saying that calories don't matter. But to me, they're not the only thing that matters. They're just one component.
CICO is not a diet or a particular way to eat, and I continue to find it puzzling when people assume from "eat what you like within your calories" that they mean "don't worry about eating a good diet" or "ignore nutrition." For me what I like includes reference to my particular goals, such as eating balanced meals and fiber and omega-3s and protein and veg, as well as trying to meet nutritional goals before adding in extras (and, yeah, cutting back some on sat fat and meat).
I get the impression that some reason "eat what you like within your calories" in a way that strikes me as odd and irresponsible -- that "what you like" has no reference to nutrition (and assumes taste preferences are all for "junk" food).
So I'd say that if you didn't like the diet you were eating when focusing primarily on calories, that wasn't because there's anything about CICO that's inconsistent with eating a good diet (I think most of us CICO supporters here try to eat according to what we consider a good diet is), but because of the particular choices you chose to make.
I tend to assume that most people who experiment will find--within a focus on cutting calories-- that there are certain ways to eat that help them feel better and be more satisfied. For me, that's eating a balanced, nutrient conscious diet and not snacking. For others it might be eating more protein (I did this too) or fewer carbs or more fiber, etc. -- lots of different things.
As WinoGelato, I actually think there's less disagreement on this board (well, other than the McDougall-types and the carnivores, perhaps) than these discussions would lead you to believe, and a lot of it IS people talking past each other. You seem to have come in assuming that others don't care about nutrition, that "processed food"="junk food," and that CICO means don't worry about eating a good diet or nutrition. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I'm getting from your posts. (And yeah, like I said upthread, I admit to my own misunderstandings and getting defensive when lectured about bad nutrition from those I don't think are any more concerned about nutrition than I am.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »For me, CICO led to the all too familiar roller coaster. That's one reason why I'm questioning it now. I'm not saying that calories don't matter. But to me, they're not the only thing that matters. They're just one component.
CICO is not a diet or a particular way to eat, and I continue to find it puzzling when people assume from "eat what you like within your calories" that they mean "don't worry about eating a good diet" or "ignore nutrition." For me what I like includes reference to my particular goals, such as eating balanced meals and fiber and omega-3s and protein and veg, as well as trying to meet nutritional goals before adding in extras (and, yeah, cutting back some on sat fat and meat).
I get the impression that some reason "eat what you like within your calories" in a way that strikes me as odd and irresponsible -- that "what you like" has no reference to nutrition (and assumes taste preferences are all for "junk" food).
So I'd say that if you didn't like the diet you were eating when focusing primarily on calories, that wasn't because there's anything about CICO that's inconsistent with eating a good diet (I think most of us CICO supporters here try to eat according to what we consider a good diet is), but because of the particular choices you chose to make.
I tend to assume that most people who experiment will find--within a focus on cutting calories-- that there are certain ways to eat that help them feel better and be more satisfied. For me, that's eating a balanced, nutrient conscious diet and not snacking. For others it might be eating more protein (I did this too) or fewer carbs or more fiber, etc. -- lots of different things.
As WinoGelato, I actually think there's less disagreement on this board (well, other than the McDougall-types and the carnivores, perhaps) than these discussions would lead you to believe, and a lot of it IS people talking past each other. You seem to have come in assuming that others don't care about nutrition, that "processed food"="junk food," and that CICO means don't worry about eating a good diet or nutrition. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I'm getting from your posts. (And yeah, like I said upthread, I admit to my own misunderstandings and getting defensive when lectured about bad nutrition from those I don't think are any more concerned about nutrition than I am.)
CICO has one meaning:
If you eat fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. If you eat more than you expend, then you will gain weight. If you eat the same amount of calories you expend, then you will maintain.
I'm just mystified at the number of people who say that doesn't work for them. There are various ways to estimate CI and CO; and the estimations can be off for some people. You know how you fix that? Accurate logging and tracking of weight to find your actual numbers.
I just don't get people who consider CICO a "way of eating".0 -
@senecarr : Great post!
Reminded me of my fave single ingredient food which meets all the criteria for my macro and micro nutrient needs. The humble egg:
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) (This is just over 2 eggs)
Energy 647 kJ (155 kcal)
Carbohydrates 1.12 g
Fat 10.6 g
Protein 12.6 g
Tryptophan 0.153 g
Threonine 0.604 g
Isoleucine 0.686 g
Leucine 1.075 g
Lysine 0.904 g
Methionine 0.392 g
Cystine 0.292 g
Phenylalanine 0.668 g
Tyrosine 0.513 g
Valine 0.767 g
Arginine 0.755 g
Histidine 0.298 g
Alanine 0.700 g
Aspartic acid 1.264 g
Glutamic acid 1.644 g
Glycine 0.423 g
Proline 0.501 g
Serine 0.936 g
Vitamins
Vitamin A equiv. (19%) 149 μg
Thiamine (B1) (6%) 0.066 mg
Riboflavin (B2) (42%) 0.5 mg
Niacin (B3) (0%) 0.064 mg
Pantothenic acid (B5) (28%) 1.4 mg
Vitamin B6 (9%) 0.121 mg
Folate (B9) (11%) 44 μg
Vitamin B12 (46%) 1.11 μg
Choline (60%) 294 mg
Vitamin D (15%) 87 IU
Vitamin E (7%) 1.03 mg
Vitamin K (0%) 0.3 μg
Minerals
Calcium (5%) 50 mg
Iron (9%) 1.2 mg
Magnesium (3%) 10 mg
Phosphorus (25%) 172 mg
Potassium (3%) 126 mg
Sodium (8%) 124 mg
Zinc (11%) 1.0 mg
Other constituents
Water 75 g
Cholesterol 373 mg
Super keto!
Also: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/118?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=egg+whole+boiled0 -
DorkothyParker wrote: »@senecarr : Great post!
Reminded me of my fave single ingredient food which meets all the criteria for my macro and micro nutrient needs. The humble egg:
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) (This is just over 2 eggs)
Energy 647 kJ (155 kcal)
Carbohydrates 1.12 g
Fat 10.6 g
Protein 12.6 g
Tryptophan 0.153 g
Threonine 0.604 g
Isoleucine 0.686 g
Leucine 1.075 g
Lysine 0.904 g
Methionine 0.392 g
Cystine 0.292 g
Phenylalanine 0.668 g
Tyrosine 0.513 g
Valine 0.767 g
Arginine 0.755 g
Histidine 0.298 g
Alanine 0.700 g
Aspartic acid 1.264 g
Glutamic acid 1.644 g
Glycine 0.423 g
Proline 0.501 g
Serine 0.936 g
Vitamins
Vitamin A equiv. (19%) 149 μg
Thiamine (B1) (6%) 0.066 mg
Riboflavin (B2) (42%) 0.5 mg
Niacin (B3) (0%) 0.064 mg
Pantothenic acid (B5) (28%) 1.4 mg
Vitamin B6 (9%) 0.121 mg
Folate (B9) (11%) 44 μg
Vitamin B12 (46%) 1.11 μg
Choline (60%) 294 mg
Vitamin D (15%) 87 IU
Vitamin E (7%) 1.03 mg
Vitamin K (0%) 0.3 μg
Minerals
Calcium (5%) 50 mg
Iron (9%) 1.2 mg
Magnesium (3%) 10 mg
Phosphorus (25%) 172 mg
Potassium (3%) 126 mg
Sodium (8%) 124 mg
Zinc (11%) 1.0 mg
Other constituents
Water 75 g
Cholesterol 373 mg
Super keto!
Also: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/118?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=egg+whole+boiled
Vitamin C?
Generally, two foods have a whole nutrition track record - human breast milk, and whale - though it assumes whale includes eating innards and things the whale itself consumed, along with having blubber raw for certain vitamin requirements.0 -
Ah yes. Well certainly I agree that one can't eat just one food exclusively.
Add spinach (and a little extra cheese to up that calcium) to make a tasty scramble. Still keto!
I've never tried whale. I guess it depends on preparation.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
The third post is mine. Edited to add: I did low carb and it isn't what it is cracked up to be.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »
The third post is mine. Edited to add: I did low carb and it isn't what it is cracked up to be.
Me thinks that exactly why it was stated.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
ah yes indeed, a newbie did indeed suggest a ketogenic diet. Didn't see that one.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
ah yes indeed, a newbie did indeed suggest a ketogenic diet. Didn't see that one.
Go further down, not just a newbie. trail nurse0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
Yep...and Liz posted this (which could be any number of posts) in response to yarwell saying that he can't recall many posts, if any at all, where someone asked an open question and is then urged to go low carb. This shows just how common place it is.
One example does not illustrate how common anything is.
Trawl 25 pages of forum posts and tell us how many you find and you might be onto something.
I found three keto/low carb OPs that received a negative first reply to the effect why are you doing this, don't do this etc. I also found three threads with no negativity. Making 50%. Over to you.0 -
Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?0
-
DorkothyParker wrote: »Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?
CICO is not a whole WOE.
Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.
An honest question: what should a woe that is simply reduced calories be called? IIFYM doesn't fit? SAD reduced? Not really for those who improved their diets.
I've seen Dr Jason Fung call it Calorie Reduced as Primary (aka CRaP) but I doubt that would go over well with people.
I've also seen it called a nutritous, balanced diet diet that is calorie reduced but most people believe that of their diets so that won't work well...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions