Carbs versus Fats. This site needs to update its recommendations.
Options
Replies
-
This site does need to update it's recommendations. I would love to be able to tweak my protein, carb and fat levels but there isn't an option (that I know of) to do so.StealthHealth wrote: »AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »I'm brand new to the site. I had no idea we could do that. kind of you to suggest it, thank you.
How do I do that, please?
From web version:
From Homepage select Goals.
Click Edit button next to Daily Nutrition Goals
Use Dropdowns for Macronutrients to set % (5% chunks only in free version)
Ensure they add up to 100%
Click Save Changes
From app
From Homepage tap ... and select Goals
Select Calorie and Macronutrient Goals
Set % (ensuring they add up to 100%)
Tap back arrow until back at homepage
2 -
-
This site does need to update it's recommendations. I would love to be able to tweak my protein, carb and fat levels but there isn't an option (that I know of) to do so.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/my_goals
You can do custom goals in that link.1 -
Hahahaha! I read some Mercola and David Wolfe and thought I knew everything about nutrition once too.
Then I actually educated myself on nutrition, dropped the fad diets and lost 60 pounds.
Good luck with all of that everyone! Enjoy all your crazy food rules! I hated it when I did it and it didn't make me any healthier (actually all that meat and fat made my blood pressure sky rocket) but if it works for you, that's great.4 -
Probably based on how you wrote the OP. You essentially tell people who are eating carbs that they are unhealthy because fat guidelines are erroneous, which completely ignores the healthiest countries in the world are 70% carb based, the amount of research already done to date and backed up your view with YouTube and NYT articles as opposed to scientific research.
In general, bashing one diet in support of another is pretty much not going to end well. At least that is the experience in my 5 years of modding this site.
I wasn't bashing anything, I was merely pointing to articles that did so. I did open it up for discussion, and with regard to diabetes II specifically, it seems clear that diabetics have hitherto been given detrimental, not to say harmful information....
But as I stated, the same post here elicited a far different response here to elsewhere.
So it can't be based on the OP.
It seems to me that people here are more courteous.
Of course, I have no way of knowing how the other site was moderated, but it seems moderation is effective here, and that therefore there are excellent standards of contribution.
0 -
The fact is you may eat what ever amount of carbs and fats you choose no matter what MFP tells you.1
-
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »Probably based on how you wrote the OP. You essentially tell people who are eating carbs that they are unhealthy because fat guidelines are erroneous, which completely ignores the healthiest countries in the world are 70% carb based, the amount of research already done to date and backed up your view with YouTube and NYT articles as opposed to scientific research.
In general, bashing one diet in support of another is pretty much not going to end well. At least that is the experience in my 5 years of modding this site.
I wasn't bashing anything, I was merely pointing to articles that did so. I did open it up for discussion, and with regard to diabetes II specifically, it seems clear that diabetics have hitherto been given detrimental, not to say harmful information....
But as I stated, the same post here elicited a far different response here to elsewhere.
So it can't be based on the OP.
It seems to me that people here are more courteous.
Of course, I have no way of knowing how the other site was moderated, but it seems moderation is effective here, and that therefore there are excellent standards of contribution.
It's probably because I ban first and then ask questions later.... . If someone has a medical condition (Type II or familial hypercholesterolemia), they should be finding the solution that addresses that need. But their required path cannot be applied to the rest of the community. This is why I laugh when people recommend a path based on requirements from those with diabetes.
People also fail to understand that the cause of a disease and the treatment of that disease aren't the same thing and in some cases, can be the complete opposite (e.g., Diverticulitis).5 -
AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »It is true that we don't actually need carbs (the body makes is own sugar from fat and protein), but as you say, carbs are found in a lot of foods that provide nutrients we do need, and those foods tend to be delicious, and people tend to like delicious food.
My point is that Fat per se isn't bad for you, but most dietary recommendations are that you cut it out or restrict intake, to specific fats (such as oils found in flax, olives, avocados and fish). Fats don't need to be reduced or eliminated. It's a globally-accepted premise, due to much influence from the 'wrong' quarters, but it;s a trend that seriously needs reversing.
And it's nothing new, either. But the voices that have needed to be heard, are only just being heard, now.
So interesting to be discussing this with you!
The only fats that have been globally accepted as beneficial are MUFA.
How can you say that when EFAs are PUFAs?1 -
I like carbs and carbs like me.How do other folks on here feel about this?
I do dislike set macro percentages though (restriction adversely affects adherence long term) so when I'm food logging I set minimums for protein & fat and rest of my calorie allowance comes from whatever macro I fancy on the day or best suits that day's activity within my overall calorie allowance.
So on a big cycling day I become a carb monster.
Also feel it's just as silly to demonise carbs as it clearly was to demonise fats.
There's a huge amount of denial amongst overweight people about the fact they simply ate too much.
Hence the constant quest to find a magic bullet whether it's a particular macro / supplement / pill or potion.
If you look at all the latest Broscience that have been backed by real science. That is exactly their recommendation whether losing gaining or maintaining. Calculate calories needed. Set minimum protein for muscles, set minimum fats for hormones and joints, and fill the remaining calories with whatever tickles your fancy.0 -
I like carbs and carbs like me.How do other folks on here feel about this?
I do dislike set macro percentages though (restriction adversely affects adherence long term) so when I'm food logging I set minimums for protein & fat and rest of my calorie allowance comes from whatever macro I fancy on the day or best suits that day's activity within my overall calorie allowance.
So on a big cycling day I become a carb monster.
Also feel it's just as silly to demonise carbs as it clearly was to demonise fats.
There's a huge amount of denial amongst overweight people about the fact they simply ate too much.
Hence the constant quest to find a magic bullet whether it's a particular macro / supplement / pill or potion.
If you look at all the latest Broscience that have been backed by real science. That is exactly their recommendation whether losing gaining or maintaining. Calculate calories needed. Set minimum protein for muscles, set minimum fats for hormones and joints, and fill the remaining calories with whatever tickles your fancy.
Sounds vaguely familiar. From a post over four years ago here on MFP: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819055/setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets/p12 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »It is true that we don't actually need carbs (the body makes is own sugar from fat and protein), but as you say, carbs are found in a lot of foods that provide nutrients we do need, and those foods tend to be delicious, and people tend to like delicious food.
My point is that Fat per se isn't bad for you, but most dietary recommendations are that you cut it out or restrict intake, to specific fats (such as oils found in flax, olives, avocados and fish). Fats don't need to be reduced or eliminated. It's a globally-accepted premise, due to much influence from the 'wrong' quarters, but it;s a trend that seriously needs reversing.
And it's nothing new, either. But the voices that have needed to be heard, are only just being heard, now.
So interesting to be discussing this with you!
The only fats that have been globally accepted as beneficial are MUFA.
How can you say that when EFAs are PUFAs?
You are definitely right. I don't know what I was thinking.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »AlexandraCarlyle wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »It is true that we don't actually need carbs (the body makes is own sugar from fat and protein), but as you say, carbs are found in a lot of foods that provide nutrients we do need, and those foods tend to be delicious, and people tend to like delicious food.
My point is that Fat per se isn't bad for you, but most dietary recommendations are that you cut it out or restrict intake, to specific fats (such as oils found in flax, olives, avocados and fish). Fats don't need to be reduced or eliminated. It's a globally-accepted premise, due to much influence from the 'wrong' quarters, but it;s a trend that seriously needs reversing.
And it's nothing new, either. But the voices that have needed to be heard, are only just being heard, now.
So interesting to be discussing this with you!
The only fats that have been globally accepted as beneficial are MUFA.
How can you say that when EFAs are PUFAs?
The thing with PUFAs is that you really don't need much. The ratio of w-3 to w-6 is what's really important. Last I saw, so long as you can hit a 1:1 ratio, you really only need about 5g/day, total.0 -
Might or might not come back for this later but you can change the macros to fit your individual choice of diet and the calories would still calculate the same. No need to push your own choice as a standard when no one standard fits everybody anyway.
ETA: I'm just as likely to listen to someone who calls themselves "Butter Bob" as I am to someone who calls themselves "Banana Girl".3 -
Nice to see the Daily Mail has found spare time to encourage/advocate/plug LCHF in between their brave attempt to classify everything in the world as either a carcinogen or a cancer-preventing agent.6
-
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Nice to see the Daily Mail has found spare time to encourage/advocate/plug LCHF in between their brave attempt to classify everything in the world as either a carcinogen or a cancer-preventing agent.
Thank you for your input, @HeliumIsNoble, I can totally see your PoV....
Interestingly, Wikipedia has no banned the Sun, the D.Express and the D.Mail as reliable sources of info for misleading, untruthful and inflammatory content. I daresay this doesn't apply to every category (currently, we're talking racism and immigration issues, specifically) but I fully take on board the view that if it's the DM, one should take 'everything with a pinch of salt' - which has coincidentally in and of itself, had unfair bad press!
However, I don't think that one can lump the whole of the newspaper and all of its articles into one category. It IS accurate, with regard to the link I originally posted, and it's not all lies and misleading stuff.....0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K 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
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K 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
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions