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
Replies
-
If you haven't already, look up the Low Carb group. I can't post a link right now but just do a search if you're interested. Lots of info and support.
3 -
-
Daddy78230 wrote: »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/
Re bold: No it not. Protein and fiber are largely linked to satiety. Fat is not. I can overeat that stuff day in and day out. In fact, its the first thing I cut when I am cutting. Why, because I am a volume eater and fats don't touch my hunger (I can eat blocks of cheese, lbs of nuts, etc..). What satiates me? Lean proteins and starches (especially potatoes). To provide more contract, I top out around 15oz when it comes to things like NY Strip or sirloin. I'd need 22oz of ribeye or prime rib. And the latter comes for like 3x the price of calories.
OP, The below is true. And we do not universally respond to foods and/or macro combinations the same. So you will need to play with your macros/calories a bit to find the right combination.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.
1 -
Daddy78230 wrote: »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/
Re bold: No it not. Protein and fiber are largely linked to satiety. Fat is not. I can overeat that stuff day in and day out. In fact, its the first thing I cut when I am cutting. Why, because I am a volume eater and fats don't touch my hunger (I can eat blocks of cheese, lbs of nuts, etc..). What satiates me? Lean proteins and starches (especially potatoes). To provide more contract, I top out around 15oz when it comes to things like NY Strip or sirloin. I'd need 22oz of ribeye or prime rib. And the latter comes for like 3x the price of calories.
OP, The below is true. And we do not universally respond to foods and/or macro combinations the same. So you will need to play with your macros/calories a bit to find the right combination.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.
This is where the type of calories eaten are different for different people. Protein and fiber will not lead to satiety in me, unless I have enough fat with it. Wheat, grains and sugar aren't inherently bad, but a whole lot of people show eat LC find that those items are bad for them.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I hope you share your experience if you do decide to do this-very curious if you find it better/worse than what you do now, ( I think we eat pretty similar right now).1 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Daddy78230 wrote: »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/
Re bold: No it not. Protein and fiber are largely linked to satiety. Fat is not. I can overeat that stuff day in and day out. In fact, its the first thing I cut when I am cutting. Why, because I am a volume eater and fats don't touch my hunger (I can eat blocks of cheese, lbs of nuts, etc..). What satiates me? Lean proteins and starches (especially potatoes). To provide more contract, I top out around 15oz when it comes to things like NY Strip or sirloin. I'd need 22oz of ribeye or prime rib. And the latter comes for like 3x the price of calories.
OP, The below is true. And we do not universally respond to foods and/or macro combinations the same. So you will need to play with your macros/calories a bit to find the right combination.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.
This is where the type of calories eaten are different for different people. Protein and fiber will not lead to satiety in me, unless I have enough fat with it. Wheat, grains and sugar aren't inherently bad, but a whole lot of people show eat LC find that those items are bad for them.
So something like boneless chicken breast and veggies wouldn't fill you up?0 -
crazyycatlady1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I hope you share your experience if you do decide to do this-very curious if you find it better/worse than what you do now, ( I think we eat pretty similar right now).
I will. Part of why I want to do it is I think doing an experiment will be motivating in and of itself and get me interested in logging again. But I am also curious if I will feel any different. I seem to feel totally fine going lower in carbs for a period of time compared to some others, so could be I end up enjoying it.
One thing I've noticed is that even though fat doesn't fill me up -- I am fine with a breakfast that is extremely low fat if it has some protein and fiber, a high fat, low fiber breakfast will usually result in me being hungry sooner, full fat dairy or higher fat meat requires more calories for the same satiety (basically like psulemon said) -- I still find that when my overall diet is somewhat higher fat (35% or more) I tend to feel happier overall and am less likely to want to overeat for reasons that seem to me to have nothing to do with hunger (I will not care that my assistant brought in homemade cupcakes if it wasn't on my plan vs. thinking about them a lot).2 -
I am pcos so carbs/sugar anything like that just feeds the beast and not in a good way at all. I actually started the 30 day keto cleanse recently (I'm currently in week 2) I've been losing for awhile (a little over a year) and I hit a rut where I was maintaining, up 2, down 2 kind of thing, workouts are great, food was good, but I was in a rut with what I was eating and not getting the scale to move. Now I know I was losing inches, as I do measure and my pants size continued to go down, but sometimes, I want the scale to move too, plus I was eating more carbs than I really wanted too and didn't want to lose the progress I've made with the symptoms of the PCOS. I lost 6 lbs the first week and I feel great. No cravings at all, my energy is good, I have a chocolate easter bunny in my freezer, cheezits in the pantry, I have stuff I could totally eat but I'm' not tempted at all, my meals are satisfying me that I am not looking for stuff and that was always the case when I am eating carbs. I think everyone is different, you gotta find what works well for you. My friend can eat potatoes for every meal and as long as she is hitting her calories she can lose, I cannot lose like that, and more than likely its the PCOS because of the way my body craves carbs and what it does when I eat them. So low carb for me is what works. I say try it, if it doesn't help, if it's not easy for you to follow, than keep trying until you find the formula that works best for you.2
-
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Daddy78230 wrote: »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/
Re bold: No it not. Protein and fiber are largely linked to satiety. Fat is not. I can overeat that stuff day in and day out. In fact, its the first thing I cut when I am cutting. Why, because I am a volume eater and fats don't touch my hunger (I can eat blocks of cheese, lbs of nuts, etc..). What satiates me? Lean proteins and starches (especially potatoes). To provide more contract, I top out around 15oz when it comes to things like NY Strip or sirloin. I'd need 22oz of ribeye or prime rib. And the latter comes for like 3x the price of calories.
OP, The below is true. And we do not universally respond to foods and/or macro combinations the same. So you will need to play with your macros/calories a bit to find the right combination.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.
This is where the type of calories eaten are different for different people. Protein and fiber will not lead to satiety in me, unless I have enough fat with it. Wheat, grains and sugar aren't inherently bad, but a whole lot of people show eat LC find that those items are bad for them.
So something like boneless chicken breast and veggies wouldn't fill you up?
Not really, no. Not without some fat involved. Different people.1 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Daddy78230 wrote: »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/
Re bold: No it not. Protein and fiber are largely linked to satiety. Fat is not. I can overeat that stuff day in and day out. In fact, its the first thing I cut when I am cutting. Why, because I am a volume eater and fats don't touch my hunger (I can eat blocks of cheese, lbs of nuts, etc..). What satiates me? Lean proteins and starches (especially potatoes). To provide more contract, I top out around 15oz when it comes to things like NY Strip or sirloin. I'd need 22oz of ribeye or prime rib. And the latter comes for like 3x the price of calories.
OP, The below is true. And we do not universally respond to foods and/or macro combinations the same. So you will need to play with your macros/calories a bit to find the right combination.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.
This is where the type of calories eaten are different for different people. Protein and fiber will not lead to satiety in me, unless I have enough fat with it. Wheat, grains and sugar aren't inherently bad, but a whole lot of people show eat LC find that those items are bad for them.
So something like boneless chicken breast and veggies wouldn't fill you up?
And some of us have big appetites regardless of what it is. I once ate 9 lbs. of salad (lettuce, onions, and shredded carrots) because I was super hungry and didn't have very many calories left for the day. I only stopped at 9 lbs. because I ran out. Would it have been more filling if I added some protein along with that fiber? Not likely...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I hope you share your experience if you do decide to do this-very curious if you find it better/worse than what you do now, ( I think we eat pretty similar right now).
I will. Part of why I want to do it is I think doing an experiment will be motivating in and of itself and get me interested in logging again. But I am also curious if I will feel any different. I seem to feel totally fine going lower in carbs for a period of time compared to some others, so could be I end up enjoying it.
One thing I've noticed is that even though fat doesn't fill me up -- I am fine with a breakfast that is extremely low fat if it has some protein and fiber, a high fat, low fiber breakfast will usually result in me being hungry sooner, full fat dairy or higher fat meat requires more calories for the same satiety (basically like psulemon said) -- I still find that when my overall diet is somewhat higher fat (35% or more) I tend to feel happier overall and am less likely to want to overeat for reasons that seem to me to have nothing to do with hunger (I will not care that my assistant brought in homemade cupcakes if it wasn't on my plan vs. thinking about them a lot).
That's my experience with fat as well. It doesn't fill me up - meat and vegetables do - but the fat (in the absence of significant amounts of carbohydrate) is what satiates/normalizes my appetite so I'm not constantly thinking about food and obsessing on when and what I can eat next. My diet is probably around 50% or 60% fat most days.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
When I move to maintenance, I may try keto, just to see if there is any increase in satiety when ketones are prevalent. And I have a feeling, I will need all 3000 calories to keep me full.1 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I hope you share your experience if you do decide to do this-very curious if you find it better/worse than what you do now, ( I think we eat pretty similar right now).
I will. Part of why I want to do it is I think doing an experiment will be motivating in and of itself and get me interested in logging again. But I am also curious if I will feel any different. I seem to feel totally fine going lower in carbs for a period of time compared to some others, so could be I end up enjoying it.
One thing I've noticed is that even though fat doesn't fill me up -- I am fine with a breakfast that is extremely low fat if it has some protein and fiber, a high fat, low fiber breakfast will usually result in me being hungry sooner, full fat dairy or higher fat meat requires more calories for the same satiety (basically like psulemon said) -- I still find that when my overall diet is somewhat higher fat (35% or more) I tend to feel happier overall and am less likely to want to overeat for reasons that seem to me to have nothing to do with hunger (I will not care that my assistant brought in homemade cupcakes if it wasn't on my plan vs. thinking about them a lot).
That's my experience with fat as well. It doesn't fill me up - meat and vegetables do - but the fat (in the absence of significant amounts of carbohydrate) is what satiates/normalizes my appetite so I'm not constantly thinking about food and obsessing on when and what I can eat next. My diet is probably around 50% or 60% fat most days.
That's good to know.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions