Yet another study shows no weight loss benefit for low-carb
Options
Replies
-
...I disagree with the exclusions of any type of diet. Look at that dude jerking 12 or so 45lb weights on his high carb, intermittent protein only diet. That's more than I can do with my legs! In the end, it is all about how you use the types of calories to your advantage....
So you think diet has something to do with how much weight somebody can lift?
Not at all. I was kind of making a joke, but if the way he eats helps him achieve his goals and stay healthy, then it works. His goals are drastically different than mine, though, so our needs are different, which is why I say I disagree with exclusions.1 -
For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Another thing, My old roommate who is a registered dietitian swears by the diet for her patients that have problems eating reduced calorie diets. If followed properly and according to Dr. Agaston's instructions the patients end up losing weight, improving blood chemistry and heart health.
Everyone is different though so I'm just curious where these researchers are compiling their data from. I think it might be better if they obtain data from real world situations where dieticians and Doctors have seen success and failures from all types of subjects.
If they did, they may be able to profile the individuals that actually do well on xyz diet or abc diet.
While many on here will not agree weight loss is actuall a function of biologic science, mental state/health, and external input/output.
Refusing to accept any part of those three factors will set anyone up for failure. Many pure "CICO" managed all 3 parts on their terms even if it wasn't obvious to them. Choosing a low-carb diet is just a single approach to managing those pieces that vary among different people.
2 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Everyone is different though so I'm just curious where these researchers are compiling their data from. I think it might be better if they obtain data from real world situations where dieticians and Doctors have seen success and failures from all types of subjects.
If they did, they may be able to profile the individuals that actually do well on xyz diet or abc diet.
That is awesome you are in better health. About the "real world" idea...surveying is the least accurate scientific study, mainly because the variability of activity levels, specific diet intake, and biological differences. They can profile for age, sex, health issues etc, but the best way to measure things like this is through direct observation, which can take place in controlled studies, such as matched, blind, placebo and two-way studies.0 -
samhennings wrote: »samhennings wrote: »Blambo - I have completely lost track of your point, it reads to me like a few disparate ideas being conflated.
I understand there is an energy cost in both storing and retrieving enerygy as/from fat.
I would imagine it is something of a constant, IE - it happens regardless of diet type.
I would also imagine this is essentially factored into the average CICO calculation. IE, if you are losing weight you are using more energy than you consume, and the fat storage/retrieval plays part of that.
I lost weight right on que, as per projections. All of this "extra" burn was happening but didnt make me lose weight any faster.
Are you saying that keto/low carb diets somehow make the "cost" of retrieving energy from fat higher? Consequently increasing the CO part of the equation?
If so, why?
I'm just saying there is the possibility of it, that that concept is not impossible. I'm not saying it happens definitely but there is evidence that it does help.
So you are arguing quite vigorously over a vague "maybe" that, even if true, would likely offer only negligible advantage?
This is all a bit majoring in the minors/forum sport to me.
Do I have your basic premise right? Low carb increases the cost of releasing energy from fat? If so, how/why?
Fat is not a readily available energy for (ATP?) for the body to use. The liver must convert the fat into something usable by the bloodstream. This requires more autonomic energy, increased by higher physical activity. Carbs have glucose molecules that can go directly into the bloodstream, so less work is needed to transform them, even complex ones that go through the citric acid cycle are processed quite easily. A byproduct of this process of transforming fat into expellable energy by the body is beta-ketone bodies, which those who wish to be in ketosis look for.
If the body can be trained to stop looking for glucose and instead process the fat that is either stored or metabolized, the output of energy is greater.
Here is a short article I found from Clackamas Community College in Oregon City, which simplifies the organic chemistry:
http://dl.clackamas.edu/ch106-07/carbohyd1.htm
The output of energy may technically be "greater", but that doesn't mean it is a significant amount. In the Hall study, even though those in the reduced carb group had a higher rate of fax oxidation, their net fat oxidation per day was less than the higher carb/reduced fat group--because their intake was so much higher. Also, when looked at from the larger perspective, the increased "energy output" (i.e. the Thermic Effect of Food) is not that big a deal--maybe 40-50 calories a day, which is too small to be considered outside the error factor of trying to estimate calorie intake.
Again, this the classic case of being overly concerned with micro processes and completely missing the big picture.
Overall it doesn't make any difference from where the body draws its energy. If you go low-carb, the body will burn more fat as fuel, but that is primarily because fat is the main fuel source available. It doesn't just walk over to your belly or thighs, scoop out a heap and burn it up. The body is constantly regulating, storing, breaking down, etc, etc. At the end of the day, whether or not you gain or lose stored body fat is determined by.....energy balance (aka CICO).
The reasons why this is even an issue are because: A/: there are a million details involved in human metabolism so it is easy to get bogged down in the arcane details or to concoct an elaborate rube-goldberg mechanism to explain any theory you want; B/: people have books to sell and, as cable news programs have proven--it is easier and more lucrative to be glib than it is to be accurate; and C/: as humans, we have a tendency to look for easy, "new and improved" solutions to stubborn problems, and a subgroup of humans has a predilection towards "contrarian" ideas, so there is a ready market available. And finally, there is a subgroup with certain medical conditions that seems to respond well to a lower-carb approach.
And, as always, no one is arguing AGAINST anyone taking a low-carb approach to weight loss, only against the "one true faith" argument, and the misleading claims about why low-carb works at all.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/are-all-calories-equal
Harvard Endocrinologist Dr. Ludwig would argue that it actually is a significant difference, on the order of 200-300 calories per day. His high fat subjects experienced less hunger while burning more calories on a isocaloric diet with the high carbohydrate.
He has multiple studies on this, but also stresses the drawbacks: those on high fat diets need to move a lot more in order to avoid certain cardio-related diseases (they did not in his study). Cholesterol was high as well as LDL. So, this high fat way of eating is not meant for Couch Potato McGee.
I disagree with the exclusions of any type of diet. Look at that dude jerking 12 or so 45lb weights on his high carb, intermittent protein only diet. That's more than I can do with my legs! In the end, it is all about how you use the types of calories to your advantage. For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
To be fair, that 495 pull was when I was over 200 lbs. I tried 455 a few months ago at 160 and failed miserably. Haven't bothered trying for a new PR since then, so I still call my current max 425.
0 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Things I did and you could have done without going on South Beach:
(1) not eat a diet you would describe as "crap" but instead try to eat mostly nutrient-dense foods; (2) focus on eating the kinds of foods that make you not hungry; and (3) eat lots of vegetables. All of those for me were basics -- the satiety thing because why not eat foods that fill you up? The others because I've always understood that one should eat a nutritious diet with lots of vegetables. In that there's nothing about just eating a normal diet that prevents you from doing either, AT ALL -- the "basic American" diet I grew up with was typically protein, starch, and vegetables at each meal, with vegetables being an essential part of it -- I never understand why people claim to need a special diet (let alone a lower carb diet) to increase vegetables. When I decided to eat better and cut calories before even reading anything about dieting or nutrition or playing around with satiety, I just assumed that OF COURSE one would eat more vegetables and cut back some on starches and added fats (and desserts and other snacking things, obviously). And every gov't recommendation including the current MyPlate (slammed as they are) recommend cutting back on added sugar/sweets and adding vegetables and fruit (often making half the plate vegetables, which always seemed to me a good idea).
Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Things I did and you could have done without going on South Beach:
(1) not eat a diet you would describe as "crap" but instead try to eat mostly nutrient-dense foods; (2) focus on eating the kinds of foods that make you not hungry; and (3) eat lots of vegetables. All of those for me were basics -- the satiety thing because why not eat foods that fill you up? The others because I've always understood that one should eat a nutritious diet with lots of vegetables. In that there's nothing about just eating a normal diet that prevents you from doing either, AT ALL -- the "basic American" diet I grew up with was typically protein, starch, and vegetables at each meal, with vegetables being an essential part of it -- I never understand why people claim to need a special diet (let alone a lower carb diet) to increase vegetables. When I decided to eat better and cut calories before even reading anything about dieting or nutrition or playing around with satiety, I just assumed that OF COURSE one would eat more vegetables and cut back some on starches and added fats (and desserts and other snacking things, obviously). And every gov't recommendation including the current MyPlate (slammed as they are) recommend cutting back on added sugar/sweets and adding vegetables and fruit (often making half the plate vegetables, which always seemed to me a good idea).
Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.
So. much. this.
It really makes me wonder when posters constantly present the alternative to low carb as endless meals of ... what? Hamburger Helper by itself? Velveeta Shells and Cheese? Ramen Cups?
What were they eating? I was raised eating meat/veggies/starch like you, Lemurcat, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a generational thing.9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Things I did and you could have done without going on South Beach:
(1) not eat a diet you would describe as "crap" but instead try to eat mostly nutrient-dense foods; (2) focus on eating the kinds of foods that make you not hungry; and (3) eat lots of vegetables. All of those for me were basics -- the satiety thing because why not eat foods that fill you up? The others because I've always understood that one should eat a nutritious diet with lots of vegetables. In that there's nothing about just eating a normal diet that prevents you from doing either, AT ALL -- the "basic American" diet I grew up with was typically protein, starch, and vegetables at each meal, with vegetables being an essential part of it -- I never understand why people claim to need a special diet (let alone a lower carb diet) to increase vegetables. When I decided to eat better and cut calories before even reading anything about dieting or nutrition or playing around with satiety, I just assumed that OF COURSE one would eat more vegetables and cut back some on starches and added fats (and desserts and other snacking things, obviously). And every gov't recommendation including the current MyPlate (slammed as they are) recommend cutting back on added sugar/sweets and adding vegetables and fruit (often making half the plate vegetables, which always seemed to me a good idea).
Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.
So. much. this.
It really makes me wonder when posters constantly present the alternative to low carb as endless meals of ... what? Hamburger Helper by itself? Velveeta Shells and Cheese? Ramen Cups?
What were they eating? I was raised eating meat/veggies/starch like you, Lemurcat, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a generational thing.
I promise I am getting in more nutrients in my flexible 4k calories than someone else's nutrient dense low carb, high fat plan at 1300.5 -
To each their own but for me personally I just can't get onto any fad diet bandwagon. Just not my fit. To me it's a common sense approach. Eat healthy and watch your calories along with a diversified exercise regimen.2
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Things I did and you could have done without going on South Beach:
(1) not eat a diet you would describe as "crap" but instead try to eat mostly nutrient-dense foods; (2) focus on eating the kinds of foods that make you not hungry; and (3) eat lots of vegetables. All of those for me were basics -- the satiety thing because why not eat foods that fill you up? The others because I've always understood that one should eat a nutritious diet with lots of vegetables. In that there's nothing about just eating a normal diet that prevents you from doing either, AT ALL -- the "basic American" diet I grew up with was typically protein, starch, and vegetables at each meal, with vegetables being an essential part of it -- I never understand why people claim to need a special diet (let alone a lower carb diet) to increase vegetables. When I decided to eat better and cut calories before even reading anything about dieting or nutrition or playing around with satiety, I just assumed that OF COURSE one would eat more vegetables and cut back some on starches and added fats (and desserts and other snacking things, obviously). And every gov't recommendation including the current MyPlate (slammed as they are) recommend cutting back on added sugar/sweets and adding vegetables and fruit (often making half the plate vegetables, which always seemed to me a good idea).
Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.
So. much. this.
It really makes me wonder when posters constantly present the alternative to low carb as endless meals of ... what? Hamburger Helper by itself? Velveeta Shells and Cheese? Ramen Cups?
What were they eating? I was raised eating meat/veggies/starch like you, Lemurcat, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a generational thing.
I promise I am getting in more nutrients in my flexible 4k calories than someone else's nutrient dense low carb, high fat plan at 1300.
God help us all if they ever start putting micronutrients in Tootsie Pops.4 -
Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.
Probably should have put this part first. It's a very good diet and helps a person figure out what works for them. It also is wonderful at improving blood chemistry. I've said this before but weight loss is part biochemical, mental, and external input/output. Ignoring those pieces can set a person up for failure.
@Hornsby I would hope that a healthy 5'9"-6'+ male that (I am assuming) lifts heavy weights and works out vigorously is eating enough to maintain that life style. You do need 4kcalories worth of macros and micros to maintain it.
HOWEVER a 5'3" mother that has been out of practice for 4 years, who sits 12hours a day due to work (no matter how much work is done before/after) does not and should not eat 4k calories. Your snarky response was necessary and did not add anything to the conversation.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Things I did and you could have done without going on South Beach:
(1) not eat a diet you would describe as "crap" but instead try to eat mostly nutrient-dense foods; (2) focus on eating the kinds of foods that make you not hungry; and (3) eat lots of vegetables. All of those for me were basics -- the satiety thing because why not eat foods that fill you up? The others because I've always understood that one should eat a nutritious diet with lots of vegetables. In that there's nothing about just eating a normal diet that prevents you from doing either, AT ALL -- the "basic American" diet I grew up with was typically protein, starch, and vegetables at each meal, with vegetables being an essential part of it -- I never understand why people claim to need a special diet (let alone a lower carb diet) to increase vegetables. When I decided to eat better and cut calories before even reading anything about dieting or nutrition or playing around with satiety, I just assumed that OF COURSE one would eat more vegetables and cut back some on starches and added fats (and desserts and other snacking things, obviously). And every gov't recommendation including the current MyPlate (slammed as they are) recommend cutting back on added sugar/sweets and adding vegetables and fruit (often making half the plate vegetables, which always seemed to me a good idea).
Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.
So. much. this.
It really makes me wonder when posters constantly present the alternative to low carb as endless meals of ... what? Hamburger Helper by itself? Velveeta Shells and Cheese? Ramen Cups?
What were they eating? I was raised eating meat/veggies/starch like you, Lemurcat, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a generational thing.
For me, it is in comparison to high doses of fruit (I.e. Bananas, apples, citruses), certain breads, wheat/bran heavy cereals, rice, chips, milk, pasta...
I never contrast to that degree of eating non-nutritious food. Even when I did INSANITY and followed the 40p/40c/20f macros that Shaun T advocated for, I would be famished for more at the end of the day. Maybe I made some errors, but it just didn't work for me.1 -
To each their own but for me personally I just can't get onto any fad diet bandwagon. Just not my fit. To me it's a common sense approach. Eat healthy and watch your calories along with a diversified exercise regimen.
To be fair, this way of eating has been researched by hospitals worldwide for the better part of a century. It has variations that people stick names on, but the diet itself is well researched and advocated for by many in the medical and scientific community.
2 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Another thing, My old roommate who is a registered dietitian swears by the diet for her patients that have problems eating reduced calorie diets. If followed properly and according to Dr. Agaston's instructions the patients end up losing weight, improving blood chemistry and heart health.
Everyone is different though so I'm just curious where these researchers are compiling their data from. I think it might be better if they obtain data from real world situations where dieticians and Doctors have seen success and failures from all types of subjects.
If they did, they may be able to profile the individuals that actually do well on xyz diet or abc diet.
While many on here will not agree weight loss is actuall a function of biologic science, mental state/health, and external input/output.
Refusing to accept any part of those three factors will set anyone up for failure. Many pure "CICO" managed all 3 parts on their terms even if it wasn't obvious to them. Choosing a low-carb diet is just a single approach to managing those pieces that vary among different people.
I agree with you that there should be more studies on people's actual experiences, especially those who are in maintenance (lots of people are really good at losing weight but very few are actually able to keep it off). That's a big part of why I'm a NWCR participant. More research like what they're doing is needed.1 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.
Probably should have put this part first. It's a very good diet and helps a person figure out what works for them.
No, I picked the order on purpose.
It's a fine diet but no better than numerous other ways of eating, including no named diet at all. It's also easy to figure out what works for you with a non-named diet. You seemed to think that something like SB was needed, and I think it might help some people but most really should be able to come to an equally healthful (or more!) diet that works for them using their own logic and common sense and understand of the basics of nutrition. As I said before, what's hard about understanding it's a good thing to eat vegetables?
The idea that one must do low carb or SB or some such to do that or that those of us who don't do those diets don't eat healthfully is wrong.
And my blood chemistry is fine, was fine when I was fat (when I ate a nutrient-rich diet, just too much) and is even better now.I've said this before but weight loss is part biochemical, mental, and external input/output. Ignoring those pieces can set a person up for failure.
Saying there's nothing superior about SB or low carb (different things) does not mean you should ignore those things. Common sense would say that one should eat a healthy, satisfying diet that doesn't leave you hungry and response to results.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Things I did and you could have done without going on South Beach:
(1) not eat a diet you would describe as "crap" but instead try to eat mostly nutrient-dense foods; (2) focus on eating the kinds of foods that make you not hungry; and (3) eat lots of vegetables. All of those for me were basics -- the satiety thing because why not eat foods that fill you up? The others because I've always understood that one should eat a nutritious diet with lots of vegetables. In that there's nothing about just eating a normal diet that prevents you from doing either, AT ALL -- the "basic American" diet I grew up with was typically protein, starch, and vegetables at each meal, with vegetables being an essential part of it -- I never understand why people claim to need a special diet (let alone a lower carb diet) to increase vegetables. When I decided to eat better and cut calories before even reading anything about dieting or nutrition or playing around with satiety, I just assumed that OF COURSE one would eat more vegetables and cut back some on starches and added fats (and desserts and other snacking things, obviously). And every gov't recommendation including the current MyPlate (slammed as they are) recommend cutting back on added sugar/sweets and adding vegetables and fruit (often making half the plate vegetables, which always seemed to me a good idea).
Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.
So. much. this.
It really makes me wonder when posters constantly present the alternative to low carb as endless meals of ... what? Hamburger Helper by itself? Velveeta Shells and Cheese? Ramen Cups?
What were they eating? I was raised eating meat/veggies/starch like you, Lemurcat, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a generational thing.
For me, it is in comparison to high doses of fruit (I.e. Bananas, apples, citruses), certain breads, wheat/bran heavy cereals, rice, chips, milk, pasta...
I never contrast to that degree of eating non-nutritious food. Even when I did INSANITY and followed the 40p/40c/20f macros that Shaun T advocated for, I would be famished for more at the end of the day. Maybe I made some errors, but it just didn't work for me.
The Shaun T macros wouldn't work for me either (I wouldn't be hungry, but would be miserable and unsatisfied). But that they wouldn't work for me personally doesn't mean my current macros are healthier for anyone but me or better for anyone but me.
People saying "low carb works better for me" I have no argument with (sorta low carb works better for me). People saying "you can't lose on non low carb" or "eating too much fruit" or "eating bread" or that carbs are unhealthy, that's what I have an argument with.3 -
samhennings wrote: »samhennings wrote: »Blambo - I have completely lost track of your point, it reads to me like a few disparate ideas being conflated.
I understand there is an energy cost in both storing and retrieving enerygy as/from fat.
I would imagine it is something of a constant, IE - it happens regardless of diet type.
I would also imagine this is essentially factored into the average CICO calculation. IE, if you are losing weight you are using more energy than you consume, and the fat storage/retrieval plays part of that.
I lost weight right on que, as per projections. All of this "extra" burn was happening but didnt make me lose weight any faster.
Are you saying that keto/low carb diets somehow make the "cost" of retrieving energy from fat higher? Consequently increasing the CO part of the equation?
If so, why?
I'm just saying there is the possibility of it, that that concept is not impossible. I'm not saying it happens definitely but there is evidence that it does help.
So you are arguing quite vigorously over a vague "maybe" that, even if true, would likely offer only negligible advantage?
This is all a bit majoring in the minors/forum sport to me.
Do I have your basic premise right? Low carb increases the cost of releasing energy from fat? If so, how/why?
Fat is not a readily available energy for (ATP?) for the body to use. The liver must convert the fat into something usable by the bloodstream. This requires more autonomic energy, increased by higher physical activity. Carbs have glucose molecules that can go directly into the bloodstream, so less work is needed to transform them, even complex ones that go through the citric acid cycle are processed quite easily. A byproduct of this process of transforming fat into expellable energy by the body is beta-ketone bodies, which those who wish to be in ketosis look for.
If the body can be trained to stop looking for glucose and instead process the fat that is either stored or metabolized, the output of energy is greater.
Here is a short article I found from Clackamas Community College in Oregon City, which simplifies the organic chemistry:
http://dl.clackamas.edu/ch106-07/carbohyd1.htm
The output of energy may technically be "greater", but that doesn't mean it is a significant amount. In the Hall study, even though those in the reduced carb group had a higher rate of fax oxidation, their net fat oxidation per day was less than the higher carb/reduced fat group--because their intake was so much higher. Also, when looked at from the larger perspective, the increased "energy output" (i.e. the Thermic Effect of Food) is not that big a deal--maybe 40-50 calories a day, which is too small to be considered outside the error factor of trying to estimate calorie intake.
Again, this the classic case of being overly concerned with micro processes and completely missing the big picture.
Overall it doesn't make any difference from where the body draws its energy. If you go low-carb, the body will burn more fat as fuel, but that is primarily because fat is the main fuel source available. It doesn't just walk over to your belly or thighs, scoop out a heap and burn it up. The body is constantly regulating, storing, breaking down, etc, etc. At the end of the day, whether or not you gain or lose stored body fat is determined by.....energy balance (aka CICO).
The reasons why this is even an issue are because: A/: there are a million details involved in human metabolism so it is easy to get bogged down in the arcane details or to concoct an elaborate rube-goldberg mechanism to explain any theory you want; B/: people have books to sell and, as cable news programs have proven--it is easier and more lucrative to be glib than it is to be accurate; and C/: as humans, we have a tendency to look for easy, "new and improved" solutions to stubborn problems, and a subgroup of humans has a predilection towards "contrarian" ideas, so there is a ready market available. And finally, there is a subgroup with certain medical conditions that seems to respond well to a lower-carb approach.
And, as always, no one is arguing AGAINST anyone taking a low-carb approach to weight loss, only against the "one true faith" argument, and the misleading claims about why low-carb works at all.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/are-all-calories-equal
Harvard Endocrinologist Dr. Ludwig would argue that it actually is a significant difference, on the order of 200-300 calories per day. His high fat subjects experienced less hunger while burning more calories on a isocaloric diet with the high carbohydrate.
He has multiple studies on this, but also stresses the drawbacks: those on high fat diets need to move a lot more in order to avoid certain cardio-related diseases (they did not in his study). Cholesterol was high as well as LDL. So, this high fat way of eating is not meant for Couch Potato McGee.
I disagree with the exclusions of any type of diet. Look at that dude jerking 12 or so 45lb weights on his high carb, intermittent protein only diet. That's more than I can do with my legs! In the end, it is all about how you use the types of calories to your advantage. For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Do you have links to the actual studies? More often than not, the differences in EE can largely be attributed to protein intake and other activities. I have yet to see a isocaloric study that maintains protein to show a difference in EE driven by carbs vs fats. Even in the few recent ones, the short term increase in EE was attributed to the increased requirement to produce ketones, and possible fluctuations in TEA output.
The largest issue that I have with Dr. Ludwigs studies, is his premise is largely based on refined carbs, which also tends to have equal amounts of fat. But we ignore the fat component. If we look at the parts of the society which are the healthiest and longest living, they share a few things in common. Low amounts of added sugar, low amounts of meat, typical diets around 70% carbs and highly active. All of those countries also eat about 30 to 40% less calories than the average American. Ignoring calories, to suggest carbs and/or insulin causes obesity, is probably a bit short coming.4 -
i follow a low-carb diet due to some health issues & my dr prescribed it for me. i stay under 1300 kcal/day AND <30gcarb\day and i have lost 25 lbs since november. so i don't really ready studies. i do what works for me.
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Things I did and you could have done without going on South Beach:
(1) not eat a diet you would describe as "crap" but instead try to eat mostly nutrient-dense foods; (2) focus on eating the kinds of foods that make you not hungry; and (3) eat lots of vegetables. All of those for me were basics -- the satiety thing because why not eat foods that fill you up? The others because I've always understood that one should eat a nutritious diet with lots of vegetables. In that there's nothing about just eating a normal diet that prevents you from doing either, AT ALL -- the "basic American" diet I grew up with was typically protein, starch, and vegetables at each meal, with vegetables being an essential part of it -- I never understand why people claim to need a special diet (let alone a lower carb diet) to increase vegetables. When I decided to eat better and cut calories before even reading anything about dieting or nutrition or playing around with satiety, I just assumed that OF COURSE one would eat more vegetables and cut back some on starches and added fats (and desserts and other snacking things, obviously). And every gov't recommendation including the current MyPlate (slammed as they are) recommend cutting back on added sugar/sweets and adding vegetables and fruit (often making half the plate vegetables, which always seemed to me a good idea).
Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.
So. much. this.
It really makes me wonder when posters constantly present the alternative to low carb as endless meals of ... what? Hamburger Helper by itself? Velveeta Shells and Cheese? Ramen Cups?
What were they eating? I was raised eating meat/veggies/starch like you, Lemurcat, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a generational thing.
For me, it is in comparison to high doses of fruit (I.e. Bananas, apples, citruses), certain breads, wheat/bran heavy cereals, rice, chips, milk, pasta...
I never contrast to that degree of eating non-nutritious food. Even when I did INSANITY and followed the 40p/40c/20f macros that Shaun T advocated for, I would be famished for more at the end of the day. Maybe I made some errors, but it just didn't work for me.
The Shaun T macros wouldn't work for me either (I wouldn't be hungry, but would be miserable and unsatisfied). But that they wouldn't work for me personally doesn't mean my current macros are healthier for anyone but me or better for anyone but me.
People saying "low carb works better for me" I have no argument with (sorta low carb works better for me). People saying "you can't lose on non low carb" or "eating too much fruit" or "eating bread" or that carbs are unhealthy, that's what I have an argument with.
Agreed. I know how people who have success on various "plans" besides low (or lower carb, as I am) can just dismiss the idea of going low carb high fat. A majority of those will default to "it's always CICO". But that helps no one. The LC way of eating is medically prescribed for those who are very overweight or obese, and have trouble stopping once they start. It allows them to only have 2-3 meals a day when they are used to 3-4 with snacking. Some people thrive at the latter, but my chances at overeating increase with opportunities.
So, throughout this forum, those that advocate for it are equally frustrated by those that dismiss it, because for most, there are reasons to why they are looking into it, and very valid ones. I never dismiss a certain path to reaching goals, as they are equally valid if healthfulness is achieved.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tmoneyag99 wrote: »For me, high fat leads to less opportunities to eat, long term endurance in my activities, and (much to my surprise when I started doing this) better lipid panels.
Plus, avocados are about to become a heck of a lot more expensive...
Bingo. Before going on the Southbeach my diet was crap. I was hungry during the day at work ALL - OF - THE -TIME.
I can't focus if I'm hungry. My work involves heavy detail and focus and critical thinking. So not being able to function.
This past summer I had 3 TIAs due to an open PFO, a blood clotting disorder which is exacerbated with high cholesterol.
I had to do something. I read Dr. Agaston's book. (don't poo poo it until you read it) The diet was DESIGNED for cholesterol and blood chemistry improvement. *NOT* for weight loss. Weight loss just happened to be a bonus.
I am on the diet and I don't eat more than 1300 calories a day. Not because I'm trying to eat that few. Just because I'm not hungry.
I also eat WAY more vegetables than I was prior to the diet. My variety is crazy good. My weight and BMI are way better.
Things I did and you could have done without going on South Beach:
(1) not eat a diet you would describe as "crap" but instead try to eat mostly nutrient-dense foods; (2) focus on eating the kinds of foods that make you not hungry; and (3) eat lots of vegetables. All of those for me were basics -- the satiety thing because why not eat foods that fill you up? The others because I've always understood that one should eat a nutritious diet with lots of vegetables. In that there's nothing about just eating a normal diet that prevents you from doing either, AT ALL -- the "basic American" diet I grew up with was typically protein, starch, and vegetables at each meal, with vegetables being an essential part of it -- I never understand why people claim to need a special diet (let alone a lower carb diet) to increase vegetables. When I decided to eat better and cut calories before even reading anything about dieting or nutrition or playing around with satiety, I just assumed that OF COURSE one would eat more vegetables and cut back some on starches and added fats (and desserts and other snacking things, obviously). And every gov't recommendation including the current MyPlate (slammed as they are) recommend cutting back on added sugar/sweets and adding vegetables and fruit (often making half the plate vegetables, which always seemed to me a good idea).
Anyway, I have nothing against SB -- I think it's a pretty nutritious diet and not even low carb other than the first bit. Nor (as noted above) do I have anything against low carb. But the idea that one needs to go low carb to eat a nutrient-dense diet or that one will necessarily improve one's diet by cutting carbs or doing some sort of named diet is flat out wrong.
So. much. this.
It really makes me wonder when posters constantly present the alternative to low carb as endless meals of ... what? Hamburger Helper by itself? Velveeta Shells and Cheese? Ramen Cups?
What were they eating? I was raised eating meat/veggies/starch like you, Lemurcat, and I'm starting to wonder if this is a generational thing.
For me, it is in comparison to high doses of fruit (I.e. Bananas, apples, citruses), certain breads, wheat/bran heavy cereals, rice, chips, milk, pasta...
I never contrast to that degree of eating non-nutritious food. Even when I did INSANITY and followed the 40p/40c/20f macros that Shaun T advocated for, I would be famished for more at the end of the day. Maybe I made some errors, but it just didn't work for me.
The Shaun T macros wouldn't work for me either (I wouldn't be hungry, but would be miserable and unsatisfied). But that they wouldn't work for me personally doesn't mean my current macros are healthier for anyone but me or better for anyone but me.
People saying "low carb works better for me" I have no argument with (sorta low carb works better for me). People saying "you can't lose on non low carb" or "eating too much fruit" or "eating bread" or that carbs are unhealthy, that's what I have an argument with.
Agreed. I know how people who have success on various "plans" besides low (or lower carb, as I am) can just dismiss the idea of going low carb high fat. A majority of those will default to "it's always CICO". But that helps no one. The LC way of eating is medically prescribed for those who are very overweight or obese, and have trouble stopping once they start. It allows them to only have 2-3 meals a day when they are used to 3-4 with snacking. Some people thrive at the latter, but my chances at overeating increase with opportunities.
So, throughout this forum, those that advocate for it are equally frustrated by those that dismiss it, because for most, there are reasons to why they are looking into it, and very valid ones. I never dismiss a certain path to reaching goals, as they are equally valid if healthfulness is achieved.
I wonder how much this is just talking past each other, though.
When I say "you don't need to do low carb to lose," that's always in response to two categories of people. First, those evangelizing low carb as the One True Way (and we get these people a lot, although they usually aren't longtime low carb participants in the main forums -- most of those, even those who, unlike me, seem to be members of the Low Carb Forum* -- understand it's personal preference and what works best for an individual, and not contrary to CICO but simply a good way for some to maintain a deficit. Second, people who seem to be very new to dieting or into fads and who seem to have been told or heard that you have to cut carbs to lose (or go low carb or do keto). For those I explain that's not so, but also say that if it interests them they might want to try it, as many like it.
So I would not say I dismiss the idea of LCHF. I dismiss the idea of keto for me, right now, although I've occasionally considered trying it just to find out if I would feel any different. (I HATE the idea of cutting out most fruit or occasional pasta and potatoes or ice cream (I admit it!) or yogurt or even having to possibly limit vegetables or worry about carrots being too high carb.) But saying it's not necessary or better for nutrition reasons is not dismissing it.
Often it seems to me that HFLC advocates come to the main forums, insist on various magical effects of low carb (you can't gain weight from fat!) or that carbs are unhealthy and then when people disagree with those factual inaccuracies get mad and say that people are being anti low carb. But I think those things are wrong but low carb can still be a great choice, for SOME people.
I would disagree that it's right or ideal for most who are very overweight or obese, but for some of them? Sure. If someone is eating a good nutrient-dense diet and struggling with hunger, especially if IR, I always suggest looking at macros and maybe trying low carb and if someone is interested in low carb as something to try (and not just saying they heard you have to do it to lose) I am encouraging -- I think if you are interested in something it might be something you'd like.
I DON'T agree that low carb is needed to shift from lots of snacking to 2-3 meals (or that 2 meals is particularly an ideal, although it's a natural eating pattern for some). I've always been a 2-3 meal a day person whatever my macros, and for me desire to snack is a habit thing that can (and should!) be broken, not about being too hungry. I am super skeptical that anyone is really hungry (vs. mind hungry) on the kinds of calories most overweight Americans eat and I am not aware of anyone in traditional high carb diet countries suffering from perceived great hunger due to carbs (when having adequate calories). But this goes more to various theories about why people overeat: I tend to think it's environment, not macros, although changing macros can make an obesegenic environment easier to withstand for many.
Anyway, like I said, I don't dismiss low carb as an approach (depending on how it's defined I do low carb and like it). I dismiss it as a requirement or magical solution that means CICO does not apply or supersedes normal nutritional requirements (carbs aren't unhealthy, fruits and veg certainly are not unhealthy, a diet is not fabulous just because it's LCHF, people who eat 60% carbs don't necessarily eat a lower nutrient diet than people who eat fewer carbs). Similarly, since carbs don't make me hungry and fat isn't that satiating for me (although fat tends to have a satisfying effect), I hate it when people make generalized pronouncements about what is satiating.
Based on all this, I don't think we have a disagreement on the main stuff relevant in this thread, but I also don't think there's any dismissing of low carb as a valid approach going on -- I think most are like me and the objection is not to low carb as one of many good approaches people may choose but to, er, low carb exceptionalism, the idea that it's uniquely a fabulous and unquestionable diet and not admitting its superiority = slamming it.
[Edited by MFP Staff]4 -
I did not read every post so pardon me if this was already said. I do think that there is some value to the low carb way of life. I tried the no carb diet in the past. And I had excellent results. But I can not do that forever and my body responded even more to carbs when they were re-introduced.
When this happened, it made me start thinking historically. The human body was designed far before our modern eating methods. So I started thinking about what it was actually designed to do. I think the problem is not carbs per-se. Veggies, fruits etc all have carbs. The problem is the explosion of carbs that we have come to know as "normal". I am talking the pastas, breads, chips, crackers and a host of other sources. You only have to try the no-carb diet to realize just from how many directions the carbs are coming at us. It makes sense. Almost everything that we eat has some level of processing and carbs are usually the cheapest thing a manufacturer can add. And since most everything in nature has some level of carbs, it does not make sense that we would live in a world where everything is poison to the body. When you couple this with the concept that the human body was designed to move much more than we generally do today, it is a wonder why we do not weigh more than we do.
For me, the portion control, combined with limiting, not all carbs...but seriously cutting the bread and pasta carbs seems to be working the best. The great thing is that since I am allowing to have a little every so often, I no longer crave them like a heroin addict looking for a fix. I am not at my goal weigh yet but I actually do feel that what I have been doing this time might actually be something that I can do long term.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions