low carb Does work!!!!
Options
Replies
-
It may be that athletes also need to balance the increase in protein consumption with what macronutrient is reduced. The prudent advice for athletes would be to focus on reducing intakes of lipids to allow carbohydrate intakes to achieve performance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213385/#CR8
depends on the kind of performance. for endurance, keto seems to work better. (and I mean ultra endurance)
Based on what?
Yes, there are endurance athletes that are keto but I have yet to find that the general finding is keto is better.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »But, but you CAN'T gain weight on keto!
Did someone seriously advocating LCHF actually say that? Or was it really shorthand for "I personally am never hungry enough to ram in enough calories to gain weight on LCHF"?0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Whatever vehicle you choose to reach your weight management destination, CICO is *always* the gas in the tank.
CICO is hard for most end users to work with on both the CI and the CO sides of the ledger - but of course that doesn't mean the theory itself is fallacious. I don't think most serious LCHF proponents would reject CICO as erroneous.1 -
It may be that athletes also need to balance the increase in protein consumption with what macronutrient is reduced. The prudent advice for athletes would be to focus on reducing intakes of lipids to allow carbohydrate intakes to achieve performance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213385/#CR8
depends on the kind of performance. for endurance, keto seems to work better. (and I mean ultra endurance)
Really?
When I supported my mate doing a 24 hour cycle race it was a wall to wall carb-fest.
But as he only managed 441 miles what does he know.
Do you mean possible rather than better?
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »But, but you CAN'T gain weight on keto!
Did someone seriously advocating LCHF actually say that? Or was it really shorthand for "I personally am never hungry enough to ram in enough calories to gain weight on LCHF"?
Several people have stated on these forums that they gained weight eating all foods at 1800 calories a day. After switching to LCHF, they can lose eating more (say 2200 calories).
When asked to clarify and if they just had trouble eating less when they ate carbs and couldn't stay within their goal or if they consistently ate under 2200 when on LCHF, they denied it. They insist that there is some kind of magical properties to LCHF that allows weight loss at higher calorie counts.
Not true of everyone who is LCHF, but I have seen it said.4 -
Several people have stated on these forums that they gained weight eating all foods at 1800 calories a day. After switching to LCHF, they can lose eating more (say 2200 calories).
When asked to clarify and if they just had trouble eating less when they ate carbs and couldn't stay within their goal or if they consistently ate under 2200 when on LCHF, they denied it. They insist that there is some kind of magical properties to LCHF that allows weight loss at higher calorie counts.
Hmm. Sounds like cold fusion.
It seems as if there's enough room for error (even apart from subconscious personal bias) in those CI computations to fit a foot-long hot dog sideways.
For example, as concluded by one article that catalogs the ways in which calorie counts can wander astray,The discrepancies between the number on the label and the calories that are actually available in our food, combined with individual variations in how we metabolise that food, can add up to much more than the 200 calories a day that nutritionists often advise cutting in order to lose weight.
0 -
Several people have stated on these forums that they gained weight eating all foods at 1800 calories a day. After switching to LCHF, they can lose eating more (say 2200 calories).
When asked to clarify and if they just had trouble eating less when they ate carbs and couldn't stay within their goal or if they consistently ate under 2200 when on LCHF, they denied it. They insist that there is some kind of magical properties to LCHF that allows weight loss at higher calorie counts.
Hmm. Sounds like cold fusion.
It seems as if there's enough room for error (even apart from subconscious personal bias) in those CI computations to fit a foot-long hot dog sideways.
For example, as concluded by one article that catalogs the ways in which calorie counts can wander astray,The discrepancies between the number on the label and the calories that are actually available in our food, combined with individual variations in how we metabolise that food, can add up to much more than the 200 calories a day that nutritionists often advise cutting in order to lose weight.
And I think that's the general consensus in these situations. There are inaccuracies in the logging, and if people are doing things like eating more vegetables then it may be that the inaccuracies matter less than when they forgot about that third slice of bread (or pie) that they ate. But people seem to insist that they are accurate and then propagate the fallacy.
And that I think is what ends up starting the low carb/moderation feud. No one cares what you eat and keeps you satiated; but if you insist to someone else that you can increase your calories as long as you stop eating sugar, people get annoyed. Because the chances of someone following that advice and actually losing are slim to none.2 -
Several people have stated on these forums that they gained weight eating all foods at 1800 calories a day. After switching to LCHF, they can lose eating more (say 2200 calories).
When asked to clarify and if they just had trouble eating less when they ate carbs and couldn't stay within their goal or if they consistently ate under 2200 when on LCHF, they denied it. They insist that there is some kind of magical properties to LCHF that allows weight loss at higher calorie counts.
Hmm. Sounds like cold fusion.
It seems as if there's enough room for error (even apart from subconscious personal bias) in those CI computations to fit a foot-long hot dog sideways.
For example, as concluded by one article that catalogs the ways in which calorie counts can wander astray,The discrepancies between the number on the label and the calories that are actually available in our food, combined with individual variations in how we metabolise that food, can add up to much more than the 200 calories a day that nutritionists often advise cutting in order to lose weight.
It also doesn't help that foods touted as "healthy", which either directly or indirectly target those trying to lose weight, are often the worst offenders when it comes to labeling shenanigans, and are often on the carb-heavy side, just being a slightly modified version of something from SAD. In such cases, obviously CICO still applies, but when you don't have the correct data for the input, things are going to go wonky.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838242/
18% and 8% don't seem like much, until you realize it's VERY easy to get fat eating 18% (or 8%) over your maintenance every day (1800 kcal vs. 2124, and 1800 vs. 1944 respectively) for an extended period of time, especially for sedentary people. The funky part, is that 18% is still within the passable guidelines, which is ridiculous. Some of the worst restaurant offenders were as high as double the stated amount.3 -
Saying low carb does work is very much like saying red automobiles do work.
Of course it does, if your calories out are less than your calories in. Low carbers get the benefit of meat being so difficult to digest that 40% of the available energy in meat is used already to get the remaining 60 percent. It is that 40% of lost energy that low carbers use to claim that CICO doesn't work. Blue cars work, too.2 -
1 -
-
-
Apparently "low calorie people" give her the laughshttp://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
You low calorie and nothing else people. I giggle every time
because they are too narrow minded to comprehend that on low carb eating nearly 6k calories your gain will be minimal (glycogen, water, and activity level be damned) and you will be healthy, while on the same high carb calories you would gain huge amounts and have all kinds of health problems.
2 -
msalicia116 wrote: ». There's nothing more embarassing than watching an adult respond like an adolescent.
I don't know....
What about a televangelist getting caught with a hooker?
Or befouling a pair of white breeches on your first date?
5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Apparently "low calorie people" give her the laughshttp://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
You low calorie and nothing else people. I giggle every time
because they are too narrow minded to comprehend that on low carb eating nearly 6k calories your gain will be minimal (glycogen, water, and activity level be damned) and you will be healthy, while on the same high carb calories you would gain huge amounts and have all kinds of health problems.amusedmonkey wrote: »Apparently "low calorie people" give her the laughshttp://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
You low calorie and nothing else people. I giggle every time
because they are too narrow minded to comprehend that on low carb eating nearly 6k calories your gain will be minimal (glycogen, water, and activity level be damned) and you will be healthy, while on the same high carb calories you would gain huge amounts and have all kinds of health problems.
So..you are saying..IF you eat 6000 calories a day..low carb..you can have minimal gain BUT if you eat 6000 calories a day..high carbs..you will see a drastically different weight gain?
Seriously?
Or were you being sarcastic?0 -
BiggDaddy58 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Apparently "low calorie people" give her the laughshttp://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
You low calorie and nothing else people. I giggle every time
because they are too narrow minded to comprehend that on low carb eating nearly 6k calories your gain will be minimal (glycogen, water, and activity level be damned) and you will be healthy, while on the same high carb calories you would gain huge amounts and have all kinds of health problems.amusedmonkey wrote: »Apparently "low calorie people" give her the laughshttp://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
You low calorie and nothing else people. I giggle every time
because they are too narrow minded to comprehend that on low carb eating nearly 6k calories your gain will be minimal (glycogen, water, and activity level be damned) and you will be healthy, while on the same high carb calories you would gain huge amounts and have all kinds of health problems.
So..you are saying..IF you eat 6000 calories a day..low carb..you can have minimal gain BUT if you eat 6000 calories a day..high carbs..you will see a drastically different weight gain?
Seriously?
I think she's being sarcastic
0 -
BiggDaddy58 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Apparently "low calorie people" give her the laughshttp://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
You low calorie and nothing else people. I giggle every time
because they are too narrow minded to comprehend that on low carb eating nearly 6k calories your gain will be minimal (glycogen, water, and activity level be damned) and you will be healthy, while on the same high carb calories you would gain huge amounts and have all kinds of health problems.amusedmonkey wrote: »Apparently "low calorie people" give her the laughshttp://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
You low calorie and nothing else people. I giggle every time
because they are too narrow minded to comprehend that on low carb eating nearly 6k calories your gain will be minimal (glycogen, water, and activity level be damned) and you will be healthy, while on the same high carb calories you would gain huge amounts and have all kinds of health problems.
So..you are saying..IF you eat 6000 calories a day..low carb..you can have minimal gain BUT if you eat 6000 calories a day..high carbs..you will see a drastically different weight gain?
Seriously?
Yep. 3.5 pounds vs 15-25 pounds in 3 weeks, context and physics be damned.2 -
msalicia116 wrote: ». There's nothing more embarassing than watching an adult respond like an adolescent.
I don't know....
What about a televangelist getting caught with a hooker?
Or befouling a pair of white breeches on your first date?
Hahaha, all tremendously embarassing. All should be avoided to the highest extent possible...Yet, here we are.
At least the last example was an accident. The other two should know better.
1 -
0
-
If you go back to my first post I indicated this is NOT a debate for me, but I guess some people can't help but to make EVERY COMMENT a debate. Just because one does not agree with another does not mean that there needs to be a debated communication. So I just smile! Sorry for those who do not like it. And this post is Not a debate just in case one may take it that way. Have a good night everyone! Those that agree and those that don't 3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions