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.
Questions about LCHF
Options
wackymrsb
Posts: 9 Member
in Debate Club
have been researching a lot about LCHF and I'm guess what I don't understand is
1. Is it true that wheat and grains are not so good for us?
2. I know you can gain weight eating too much of anything, but is there any advantage (suppressed appetite, etc) to eating low carb?
3. What about ketogenic diets? Are they truly safe? If wheat/grain/sugar is so bad why were folks in the 50s and 60s etc healthy following guidelines such as a meal consisting of protein, starch, vegetable?
Just kind of confused and trying to understand what the two sides of the carb debate are saying.
1. Is it true that wheat and grains are not so good for us?
2. I know you can gain weight eating too much of anything, but is there any advantage (suppressed appetite, etc) to eating low carb?
3. What about ketogenic diets? Are they truly safe? If wheat/grain/sugar is so bad why were folks in the 50s and 60s etc healthy following guidelines such as a meal consisting of protein, starch, vegetable?
Just kind of confused and trying to understand what the two sides of the carb debate are saying.
2
Replies
-
1) Absolutely not true
2) For some people it suppresses appetite, you'll need to try out yourself to know if it does for you
3) Ketogenic diets can be fine as long as you meet your nutritional needs. Wheat, grains and sugar aren't inherently bad, that's why folks were fine.9 -
stevencloser wrote: »1) Absolutely not true
2) For some people it suppresses appetite, you'll need to try out yourself to know if it does for you
3) Ketogenic diets can be fine as long as you meet your nutritional needs. Wheat, grains and sugar aren't inherently bad, that's why folks were fine.
As someone who's eaten keto/LCHF for over a year, I agree with all of this. For me it definitely suppresses appetite, making it much easier to eat at a deficit. I have PCOS and likely insulin resistance (formerly prediabetic) so that may be a factor. When I eat a diet higher in carbs and sugar, I tend to feel hungry all the time and deal with very strong cravings.8 -
Yes, I believe it's true. Here is a good link. https://www.dietdoctor.com/health
Plenty of free information.
1 -
macchiatto wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »1) Absolutely not true
2) For some people it suppresses appetite, you'll need to try out yourself to know if it does for you
3) Ketogenic diets can be fine as long as you meet your nutritional needs. Wheat, grains and sugar aren't inherently bad, that's why folks were fine.
As someone who's eaten keto/LCHF for over a year, I agree with all of this. For me it definitely suppresses appetite, making it much easier to eat at a deficit. I have PCOS and likely insulin resistance (formerly prediabetic) so that may be a factor. When I eat a diet higher in carbs and sugar, I tend to feel hungry all the time and deal with very strong cravings.
Totally agree. I'm still perfecting it, but it's really helped to learn how to eat when I'm hungry and not when I'm not. People will come on here and knock it and say CICO is the only thing that matters. If you are a heavy person who has lost weight time and time again LCHF is very sustainable and may work long term. Where weighing your food and counting calories trying to stay low is not very enjoyable. As soon as you stop that you'll gain it all back plus some. That is certainly part of it and it matters.
6 -
macchiatto wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »1) Absolutely not true
2) For some people it suppresses appetite, you'll need to try out yourself to know if it does for you
3) Ketogenic diets can be fine as long as you meet your nutritional needs. Wheat, grains and sugar aren't inherently bad, that's why folks were fine.
As someone who's eaten keto/LCHF for over a year, I agree with all of this. For me it definitely suppresses appetite, making it much easier to eat at a deficit. I have PCOS and likely insulin resistance (formerly prediabetic) so that may be a factor. When I eat a diet higher in carbs and sugar, I tend to feel hungry all the time and deal with very strong cravings.
Totally agree. I'm still perfecting it, but it's really helped to learn how to eat when I'm hungry and not when I'm not. People will come on here and knock it and say CICO is the only thing that matters. If you are a heavy person who has lost weight time and time again LCHF is very sustainable and may work long term. Where weighing your food and counting calories trying to stay low is not very enjoyable. As soon as you stop that you'll gain it all back plus some. That is certainly part of it and it matters.
Not saying keto isn't effective or a perfectly valid choice for you, but the bolded could also be said of keto. Or any diet plan, for that matter.11 -
I've been keto a year and a half. For me it controls my hunger and cravings. It allows me to naturally eat less calories. I have RA and have found it reduces flares and lessens my joint pain. I don't eat wheat because I have celiac but I know people who eat it regularly and perfectly healthy. I think in the 50's and 60's people naturally ate smaller portions and were more active.
Edited to add: as to being healthy all my blood work is great. My primary care doctor, rheumatologist, and cardiologist are all fine with me being keto.4 -
have been researching a lot about LCHF and I'm guess what I don't understand is
1. Is it true that wheat and grains are not so good for us?
2. I know you can gain weight eating too much of anything, but is there any advantage (suppressed appetite, etc) to eating low carb?
3. What about ketogenic diets? Are they truly safe? If wheat/grain/sugar is so bad why were folks in the 50s and 60s etc healthy following guidelines such as a meal consisting of protein, starch, vegetable?
Just kind of confused and trying to understand what the two sides of the carb debate are saying.
I think for some, wheat and grains are not good for you. For me, definitely but I am a celiac. That stuff is poison.
For me, LCHF has had a bunch of health advantages. That's the main reason people stick with it. They feel better and often find it easier to eat less. For those who don't experience the advantages, they quit, and rightly so. LCHF is a bit restrictive. If you are just as healthy including cinnamon buns in your diet, I would do it.
I have mostly been keto for the last couple of years. It's healthier for me than any other alternative I have ever found.5 -
People will come on here and knock it and say CICO is the only thing that matters. If you are a heavy person who has lost weight time and time again LCHF is very sustainable and may work long term. Where weighing your food and counting calories trying to stay low is not very enjoyable. As soon as you stop that you'll gain it all back plus some. That is certainly part of it and it matters.
I think you misunderstand.
Re the first sentence quoted:
When people say CICO is what matters for weight loss, they are not knocking keto or low carb diets. CICO is what matters for weight loss, and is why keto or other low carb diets work when they do, it is why raw vegan diets work when they do, why South Beach or paleo or even the (ugh) so called Military Diet work when they do. CICO is not some kind of diet, but only a statement that calorie balance is what determines weight loss. Not uncommonly, someone shows up and claims that their preferred diet (quite often but not only keto, it happens with plenty of others) is magic and works regardless of CICO. Usually this is someone new to keto (or whatever diet it is), although some of the various gurus will make such claims, of course, as it is part of the marketing. Or they will say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to lose eating carbs even if you eat at a deficit (I think there's a thread where such claims were made today). This is, of course, different from claiming that you individually find it hard to meet a reasonable calorie goal with carbs too high, since you are hungrier or tend to overeat. I think that's true for lots of people, and that as a result of that and other things low carb can be an excellent choice for someone.
Re the second sentence quoted: It is for many, but so are other ways of eating, for many.
Re the third and fourth sentences quoted:
Counting calories and keto are not two different things. Some count and do keto, some don't count and don't do keto. I lost weight in the past not counting and have been maintaining my weight loss this time not counting. I'm planning on trying low carb (maybe keto -- I need to figure how how many carbs that would be for me), and I will be counting, because part of it is going to be getting a handle on my TDEE again and so long as I am counting carbs and protein, why not? Also, I found counting calories and "staying low" (at a deficit -- and the calories you need to eat likely won't differ much) perfectly enjoyable when I did it. I also did not gain it back when I stopped -- why would I.
I would love it if you would respond, as I am really interested in a conversation here, if possible, not just making points and talking only to those I am in agreement with.8 -
I have type 1 diabetes and formerly had type 2 diabetes (was a "double diabetic" for many years). After trying to lose weight for more than 2 years with very slow results, I switched to low carb to help improve BG's. I did not expect my slow weight loss to change because I didn't change calories. What happened is that I started losing 5 times faster at the same calorie level... and I was/am losing at the rate one would expect based on CICO formulas.
That faster weight loss only lasted as long as I continued to reduce carbs. When I got to 20g-30g per day, weight loss stalled for months until I cut out plant products (except coffee and small amounts of sauces / seasonings) in order to eliminate those 20g-30g of carbs (coming from mostly salads, nuts, peanuts & peanut butter); which got me losing weight again.
It isn't a matter of measurements... I used the same digital scale to weigh everything before switching to low carb as I use today. It's just that calorie math doesn't work as long as I eat carbs. BG's are much better now as well.3 -
I ate keto for a year and found it much easier to adhere to my maintenance calories. No raging hunger as I had before. I recently decided to up my carbs and protein a bit and lower the fat so am currently eating what most would consider LCHF (15%c/25%p/60%f) versus keto. If hunger returns, I'll switch back to <20 carbs/day, reduce the protein and eat 75+% fat again.
ETA: Personally I have always considered a ketogenic diet to be one that has the body in a state of ketosis (versus assigning numbers or percentages). I doubt my 15/25/60 will have me there especially since I don't workout.
3 -
1) Not true. I allow my kids to eat wheat products, but I do limit their consumption. I eat it sparingly.
2) It's kind of tough over eating protein and fat on a consistent basis. Though it is possible with low carb junk food.
3) The typical diet was whole foods for most part during the 50's and 60's. Eggs, butter, lard, whole milk were common staples. The 1970's is when the national nutritional guidelines were introduced encouraging the public to eat low fat.
https://authoritynutrition.com/11-graphs-that-show-what-is-wrong-with-modern-diet/2 -
have been researching a lot about LCHF and I'm guess what I don't understand is
1. Is it true that wheat and grains are not so good for us?
2. I know you can gain weight eating too much of anything, but is there any advantage (suppressed appetite, etc) to eating low carb?
3. What about ketogenic diets? Are they truly safe? If wheat/grain/sugar is so bad why were folks in the 50s and 60s etc healthy following guidelines such as a meal consisting of protein, starch, vegetable?
Just kind of confused and trying to understand what the two sides of the carb debate are saying.
@wackymrsb Welcome to MFP forums. In general with humans there is a range of many different macros made up of Carb, Protein and Fats that people can eat very successfully. Keto seems to be more common for people who have eaten the wrong macro for a long time and in my case I had screwed up my health and was going down fast at the age of 63.
On #1 in my case it was very true that wheat and all grains were very bad for me. 30 days after I stopped eating sugar and all forums of all grains in Oct 2014 after 40 years of joint and muscle pain in the 7-8 pain level range the levels dropped to 2-3. That permitted me to pass on starting Enbrel injections.
On #2 I now stay stuffed 98% of the time without gaining weight sticking with my LCHF macro. After months of trying hard I finally gained 10 pounds holding the carbs around 50 grams most days. It seems to suppress my appetite but I do not think that is the case. I think after I got off processed foods my brain and stomach started communicating so I stopped poking my face with food automatically. I did count calories for a few weeks just to learn what I was actually eating after I learned I had accidentally wound up eating keto but when my over eating disorder resolved automatically on LCHF the need to count calories faded away.
The advantage of low carb for me have been many over the last couple years but first let me be clear that the first two weeks of going off of sugar and all grains were hellish then the carb cravings just started to fade very fast and have yet to return. My blood pressure, blood sugar, lab blood work, weight, IBS, etc became healthier and healthier over time.
On #3 I find the keto way of eating very safe. The food today was nothing like what I ate in the 50s and 60s because we raised most of what we ate. The grains today are not the same from back then either.
There really is no debate about carbs because they are good, neutral or bad for a person's longevity and only each person can decide about carbs for themselves. Based on my personal experience I knew in 30 days that carbs were very bad for me and had frozen or limited my motion in most of the joints in my body. If one seriously follows LCHF for just 90 days they will know if they feel better when when eating a high carb diet or not.
Being free from hunger and automatic body weight control is a plus but in my case. I am gaining hope of preventing my premature death.
Best of success where you go LCHF or keep eating your old way. What are you looking at eating keto today? One does not have to do LCHF to loose weight but without LCHF every time I lost weight I had a 100%+ regain . I have maintained my weight loss for over two years without manually limiting my calories and never having hunger cravings.
3 -
have been researching a lot about LCHF and I'm guess what I don't understand is
1. Is it true that wheat and grains are not so good for us?
2. I know you can gain weight eating too much of anything, but is there any advantage (suppressed appetite, etc) to eating low carb?
3. What about ketogenic diets? Are they truly safe? If wheat/grain/sugar is so bad why were folks in the 50s and 60s etc healthy following guidelines such as a meal consisting of protein, starch, vegetable?
Just kind of confused and trying to understand what the two sides of the carb debate are saying.
1. It depends on the person. Most of the people I know who are LC seem to have a lot of trouble with grains. I know some people don't, though.
2. LC makes it easier for some people to eat at a deficit, making it easier to lose weight. Again, depends on the person.
3. Keto is safe. Lots of people in there 50's and 60's aren't healthy following the SAD. They aren't given any other options unless they research it themselves.3 -
Daddy78230 wrote: »3) The typical diet was whole foods for most part during the 50's and 60's. Eggs, butter, lard, whole milk were common staples. The 1970's is when the national nutritional guidelines were introduced encouraging the public to eat low fat.
Your contrasting of low fat dairy and whole foods is inaccurate, as is the idea that whole foods = high fat diet and low carb, and that lower fat = fewer whole foods. The diet recommended by the dietary guidelines is largely whole foods based, and WFPB is both whole foods oriented and can be extremely low fat.
As the OP said, the standard diet in the 1950s and 1960s was a starch, a protein, and a veg. (This is how I grew up in the '70s and '80s too, and what I eat now and what my grandparents ate -- indeed, as I've written on other threads my grandparents probably ate more bread and potatoes than I ever did.)
The dietary guidelines did not suggest changes this pattern. Indeed, they warned against sugar as well as excessive fat (not all fat), and promoted vegetables and fruit. People largely ignored them, the shift in the diet to convenience foods (high in refined carbs and, often, fat) and snacky foods/fast food (same, with the latter particularly high in fat) happened despite the dietary guidelines. Ultimately it's just not true that our consumption of fat went down. Our percentage consumption went down a little because our calories increased and consumption of highly refined carbs (which I would not simply equate with "carbs" or even whole food starches like whole grains, tubers, and legumes, which would have been popular in those '50s diets) increased even more than fat increased.
http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/1 -
1. Is it true that wheat and grains are not so good for us?
Nope. I dropped my blood pressure and my glucose count by actually increasing my intake of whole wheat and whole grains. Reducing (not eliminating) heavily refined wheat and grains and simple sugars is what helped me to start losing weight. The whole wheat and grains are the biggest contributors to helping suppress my appetite.2. I know you can gain weight eating too much of anything, but is there any advantage (suppressed appetite, etc) to eating low carb?
I think the advantages are more personal then universal. Cutting out carbs does not suppress my appetite, rather it sends me on crazy binges every couple of days and makes me feel like crap. The trick for me was switching to less refined foods and greatly increasing my fiber intake. When dieting, the only macro I pay attention to is my fiber intake.3. What about ketogenic diets? Are they truly safe? If wheat/grain/sugar is so bad why were folks in the 50s and 60s etc healthy following guidelines such as a meal consisting of protein, starch, vegetable?
People in the 50s and 60s were far more active in their day to day lives then we are now. Manual labor/factory work and farming were the largest segment of our labor force. Now the service industry (primarily sedentary jobs) is the king, holding over 80% of US employment. Poor and middle class families only owned one car, so walking was much more common. Now, most families own two or more, and walking is seen as a "workout" rather then a daily necessity. TVs were just starting to enter our homes and only consisted of 3 stations. The more active you are, the more you body can handle/process sugars.
But as a point of fact, I've been losing pretty steadily by doing nothing more then shifting my diet to be more inline with dietary guidelines (I still have a starch with every meal, I also aim to get 2-3 servings of fruit per day, my calorie intake is between 1800-2000 per day).5 -
@wackymrsb a huge change over the past 60 years has been in our macros even more that our calorie count. Getting the ratio of carbs, protein and fats in tune with our body's need is first required to lose weight and regain lost health and never regain lost fat. Only after that is figured out do we need to get concerned about amount of calories because when the right macro for our own body is found the cravings and other eating disorders seem to just fade away in many cases.1
-
The answer to this question could be a book long but I will try to summarize. Depending on the person Carbs are not bad. If you are insulin resistant then a LCHF diet might be beneficial to you. If you are insulin resistant your body does not have a chance to burn body fat. Carbs raise insulin (all food does, but Carbs/Sugar spike insulin) and for those like me the insulin does not come down fast enough. So I eat a LCHF diet and have done so successfully and healthy.1
-
have been researching a lot about LCHF and I'm guess what I don't understand is
1. Is it true that wheat and grains are not so good for us?
2. I know you can gain weight eating too much of anything, but is there any advantage (suppressed appetite, etc) to eating low carb?
3. What about ketogenic diets? Are they truly safe? If wheat/grain/sugar is so bad why were folks in the 50s and 60s etc healthy following guidelines such as a meal consisting of protein, starch, vegetable?
Just kind of confused and trying to understand what the two sides of the carb debate are saying.
If wheat and grains were bad, or low carb advantageous to weight loss, how come billions of people live healthy lives and are of normal weight in countries that are predominantly high carb? I for one, eat lots of grains (corn, rice, oats, wheat) at every meal, my diet is high carb (75%) coz I eat those grains with starchy veggies like potatoes, beans, lentils etc, plus fruits and sugar, and I've managed to go from 152 to 120 +/-5 lbs and maintained the weight loss for 2 years now.2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »@wackymrsb a huge change over the past 60 years has been in our macros even more that our calorie count.
Not true. Since around 1970 to 2008, calories on average increased by about 500 per day (based on the self-reported surveys which are probably low and show more under reporting by the obese; according to other ways of measuring the increase is even more). http://www.cleveland.com/fighting-fat/index.ssf/2010/04/americans_are_consuming_more_calories_than_ever.html
Significantly, total calories from fat and carbs have increased.
Because carbs increased even more than fats, the ratio shifted a little (but I don't know why this would matter, and it's still much more high fat and lower carb than many places with much better obesity stats).
Specifically, it went from about 44% carbs, 37% fat, 16% protein to 49% carbs, 34% fat, 16% protein. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/4/836
Other interesting changes: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/13/whats-on-your-table-how-americas-diet-has-changed-over-the-decades/
Based on calories:
Grains -- way up.
Fats and oils -- way up.
Red meat -- about the same.
Sugars -- up, but not by a lot.
Dairy and eggs -- down a little, but not much different.
Vegetables -- a tiny bit down, but too low in both.
Legumes -- up, a little, pretty low overall.
Fruit and fruit juice -- up a little, not a lot, pretty low (and probably more juice than fruit).
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/13/whats-on-your-table-how-americas-diet-has-changed-over-the-decades/
Basic take away -- we eat a bunch more, too many of our calories are from the categories grains and fats and oils (which probably are combined in a bunch of highly processed foods that are high in fat as well as carbs), and macro ratio is not the issue, nutrient density probably is, as well as food choice in general.6 -
Thank you everyone!! This was extremely informative!! My husband and I wanted to try a LCHF diet because he is overweight and I am obese. We felt it would be healthier as well as possibly help curb appetite. I feel good going into this way of eating and seeing how it makes us feel and what kind and results we have. We can always tweak things as necessary! Thank you again everyone!4
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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions