how much carbs is too much carbs? - dietary help
Replies
-
nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Yes, your 2nd bolded part is not accurate. Protein also triggers an insulin response. That is what anvil is saying.
Except that protein isn't one of the three molecules.
Are you all just trolling me? This can't be for real.
You're talking in circles. If you're narrowly defining your three molecules and then citing that one of them causes glucose overload leading to insulin spikes and fat storage, it's only right that someone else can point out another molecule that you didn't mention another molecule that also causes insulin spikes.
You're leaving out important information.
No one is trolling you, you're just not painting a complete picture.
I'm not actually trying to paint a picture, though.
I'm not defending this person's claim. I've already said I don't think the claim is accurate.
Let me remind you what my point is here. I'm explaining why calling the things he said, "not accurate in any way" isn't reasonable and is negative.
It's not accurate in any way.
The person is eating in a calorie deficit.
Net fat storage in a calorie deficit doesn't happen.
The teachings of low carb gurus about "fat storing mode" triggered by insulin response are alarmist nonsense. Fat storage/usage is a normal part of the energy cycle we all go through daily and the net result of it depends entirely on energy balance, not substrate balance like they'd like you to think.10 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Three salient points:
1) Alcohol is not used for fuel, so that's a moot (and incorrect) point.
2) Substrate utilization isn't that simple. Low-intensity activities are primarily fueled by fat, higher intensity activities are fueled primarily by glycogen. The ratio of each varies and it's incorrect to say that the body uses glucose/glycogen for energy before anything else. While at rest, the body is using primarily fat for fuel. Ketones are primarily used for fuel only in the absence of carbohydrates/glycogen.
3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
do you have research that proves that protein has the same insulin response as carbohydrates? i thought they were only converted if there wasn't adequate glycogen (which is why you don't overdo protein on keto, because it will kick you out of ketosis).
I'm just curious where that comes from? I'd love to read about it from a scholarly source1 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Three salient points:
1) Alcohol is not used for fuel, so that's a moot (and incorrect) point.
2) Substrate utilization isn't that simple. Low-intensity activities are primarily fueled by fat, higher intensity activities are fueled primarily by glycogen. The ratio of each varies and it's incorrect to say that the body uses glucose/glycogen for energy before anything else. While at rest, the body is using primarily fat for fuel. Ketones are primarily used for fuel only in the absence of carbohydrates/glycogen.
3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
do you have research that proves that protein has the same insulin response as carbohydrates? i thought they were only converted if there wasn't adequate glycogen (which is why you don't overdo protein on keto, because it will kick you out of ketosis).
I'm just curious where that comes from? I'd love to read about it from a scholarly source
I posted the link to a pretty exhaustive research review above. Here it is again: http://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Links to the research are embedded in the text.7 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Three salient points:
1) Alcohol is not used for fuel, so that's a moot (and incorrect) point.
2) Substrate utilization isn't that simple. Low-intensity activities are primarily fueled by fat, higher intensity activities are fueled primarily by glycogen. The ratio of each varies and it's incorrect to say that the body uses glucose/glycogen for energy before anything else. While at rest, the body is using primarily fat for fuel. Ketones are primarily used for fuel only in the absence of carbohydrates/glycogen.
3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
do you have research that proves that protein has the same insulin response as carbohydrates? i thought they were only converted if there wasn't adequate glycogen (which is why you don't overdo protein on keto, because it will kick you out of ketosis).
I'm just curious where that comes from? I'd love to read about it from a scholarly source
I posted the link to a pretty exhaustive research review above. Here it is again: http://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Links to the research are embedded in the text.
thanks i'll read it1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Yes, your 2nd bolded part is not accurate. Protein also triggers an insulin response. That is what anvil is saying.
Except that protein isn't one of the three molecules.
Are you all just trolling me? This can't be for real.
You're talking in circles. If you're narrowly defining your three molecules and then citing that one of them causes glucose overload leading to insulin spikes and fat storage, it's only right that someone else can point out another molecule that you didn't mention another molecule that also causes insulin spikes.
You're leaving out important information.
No one is trolling you, you're just not painting a complete picture.
I'm not actually trying to paint a picture, though.
I'm not defending this person's claim. I've already said I don't think the claim is accurate.
Let me remind you what my point is here. I'm explaining why calling the things he said, "not accurate in any way" isn't reasonable and is negative.
It's not accurate in any way.
The person is eating in a calorie deficit.
Net fat storage in a calorie deficit doesn't happen.
The teachings of low carb gurus about "fat storing mode" triggered by insulin response are alarmist nonsense. Fat storage/usage is a normal part of the energy cycle we all go through daily and the net result of it depends entirely on energy balance, not substrate balance like they'd like you to think.
Unless you think carbs don't trigger insulin or that insulin doesn't trigger fat storage, it's accurate in some ways.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Yes, your 2nd bolded part is not accurate. Protein also triggers an insulin response. That is what anvil is saying.
Except that protein isn't one of the three molecules.
Are you all just trolling me? This can't be for real.
You're talking in circles. If you're narrowly defining your three molecules and then citing that one of them causes glucose overload leading to insulin spikes and fat storage, it's only right that someone else can point out another molecule that you didn't mention another molecule that also causes insulin spikes.
You're leaving out important information.
No one is trolling you, you're just not painting a complete picture.
I'm not actually trying to paint a picture, though.
I'm not defending this person's claim. I've already said I don't think the claim is accurate.
Let me remind you what my point is here. I'm explaining why calling the things he said, "not accurate in any way" isn't reasonable and is negative.
It's not accurate in any way.
The person is eating in a calorie deficit.
Net fat storage in a calorie deficit doesn't happen.
The teachings of low carb gurus about "fat storing mode" triggered by insulin response are alarmist nonsense. Fat storage/usage is a normal part of the energy cycle we all go through daily and the net result of it depends entirely on energy balance, not substrate balance like they'd like you to think.
All of this! ^ Leaving aside for a moment, the whole "glycogen overflow" term, which is not even really a thing. Lets assume for a moment that a persons glycogen stores were full, unlikely as that might be. Then excess Blood Glucose will convert to fat. It will only remain as stored fat in an energy surplus. That doesn't apply to the OP or anyone else in calorie deficit as there is no net fat gain in a deficit.
If you are trying to make a point about energy molecules, I'm not grasping it, try as I might. Glycogen is energy. ATP is energy. (both derived from glucose) Glucose is energy (and can be derived from carbs or from protein via neoglucogenesis). Fat is energy. What am I missing?
4 -
3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
My only point is that this person was being treated unkindly. If you think that's irrelevant, don't respond to me because I don't have another point.
Otherwise, I'm saying that there are actual physiological truths behind what this person is saying and it's not nice to treat them like they are just spouting complete nonsense. This is a human being.
As I've repeated, I don't think this person was accurate. I just think it's unreasonable to say they are not accurate in any way.3 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Yes, your 2nd bolded part is not accurate. Protein also triggers an insulin response. That is what anvil is saying.
Except that protein isn't one of the three molecules.
Are you all just trolling me? This can't be for real.
You're talking in circles. If you're narrowly defining your three molecules and then citing that one of them causes glucose overload leading to insulin spikes and fat storage, it's only right that someone else can point out another molecule that you didn't mention another molecule that also causes insulin spikes.
You're leaving out important information.
No one is trolling you, you're just not painting a complete picture.
I'm not actually trying to paint a picture, though.
I'm not defending this person's claim. I've already said I don't think the claim is accurate.
Let me remind you what my point is here. I'm explaining why calling the things he said, "not accurate in any way" isn't reasonable and is negative.
It's not accurate in any way.
The person is eating in a calorie deficit.
Net fat storage in a calorie deficit doesn't happen.
The teachings of low carb gurus about "fat storing mode" triggered by insulin response are alarmist nonsense. Fat storage/usage is a normal part of the energy cycle we all go through daily and the net result of it depends entirely on energy balance, not substrate balance like they'd like you to think.
Unless you think carbs don't trigger insulin or that insulin doesn't trigger fat storage, it's accurate in some ways.
OK, here is the crux of it. It's already been stated earlier. We are storing and using fat all day, every day. The only this that matters at the end of the day in terms of fat storage is energy balance. Macro mix can affect performance, satiety and hunger and adequate nutrients. But it is irrelevant to fat storage in an energy/ calorie deficit. So, what triggers insulin or doesn't is a moot point.3 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Yes, your 2nd bolded part is not accurate. Protein also triggers an insulin response. That is what anvil is saying.
Except that protein isn't one of the three molecules.
Are you all just trolling me? This can't be for real.
You're talking in circles. If you're narrowly defining your three molecules and then citing that one of them causes glucose overload leading to insulin spikes and fat storage, it's only right that someone else can point out another molecule that you didn't mention another molecule that also causes insulin spikes.
You're leaving out important information.
No one is trolling you, you're just not painting a complete picture.
I'm not actually trying to paint a picture, though.
I'm not defending this person's claim. I've already said I don't think the claim is accurate.
Let me remind you what my point is here. I'm explaining why calling the things he said, "not accurate in any way" isn't reasonable and is negative.
It's not accurate in any way.
The person is eating in a calorie deficit.
Net fat storage in a calorie deficit doesn't happen.
The teachings of low carb gurus about "fat storing mode" triggered by insulin response are alarmist nonsense. Fat storage/usage is a normal part of the energy cycle we all go through daily and the net result of it depends entirely on energy balance, not substrate balance like they'd like you to think.
Unless you think carbs don't trigger insulin or that insulin doesn't trigger fat storage, it's accurate in some ways.
Pedantry doesn't help posters who are new to the boards who are here and care about losing weight. They care about the net result, and the net result is that they aren't storing fat in an energy deficit, thus, saying that they are in "fat storage mode" due to carbohydrate intake is alarmist nonsense because it won't be permanent fat storage. That stored fat will be called into usage again as part of the normal energy cycle.
12 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
My only point is that this person was being treated unkindly. If you think that's irrelevant, don't respond to me because I don't have another point.
Otherwise, I'm saying that there are actual physiological truths behind what this person is saying and it's not nice to treat them like they are just spouting complete nonsense. This is a human being.
As I've repeated, I don't think this person was accurate. I just think it's unreasonable to say they are not accurate in any way.
So this whole tangent was because even though what they're saying isn't true at all, mean people suck. Got it.12 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
My only point is that this person was being treated unkindly. If you think that's irrelevant, don't respond to me because I don't have another point.
Otherwise, I'm saying that there are actual physiological truths behind what this person is saying and it's not nice to treat them like they are just spouting complete nonsense. This is a human being.
As I've repeated, I don't think this person was accurate. I just think it's unreasonable to say they are not accurate in any way.
That person doesn't matter as much as the OP who was being misled, imo.6 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
My only point is that this person was being treated unkindly. If you think that's irrelevant, don't respond to me because I don't have another point.
Otherwise, I'm saying that there are actual physiological truths behind what this person is saying and it's not nice to treat them like they are just spouting complete nonsense. This is a human being.
As I've repeated, I don't think this person was accurate. I just think it's unreasonable to say they are not accurate in any way.
Ah, so you feel I was unkind. Would it be kind to have this kind of inaccuracy not addressed and have someone act on it as truth? You have 463 posts. I have almost 5000, anvil almost 12000 and GottaBurn over 4000. How much myth and inaccuracy do you we think we have seen passed off as true over that amount of participation. It happens every day. If you look back a few post, you will see my encouragement of the poster I originally challenged.
Also, I think it perfectly reasonable to challenge bad data. Maybe I could do that in a less abrasive way and I will take that into consideration. Thank you.9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Yes, your 2nd bolded part is not accurate. Protein also triggers an insulin response. That is what anvil is saying.
Except that protein isn't one of the three molecules.
Are you all just trolling me? This can't be for real.
You're talking in circles. If you're narrowly defining your three molecules and then citing that one of them causes glucose overload leading to insulin spikes and fat storage, it's only right that someone else can point out another molecule that you didn't mention another molecule that also causes insulin spikes.
You're leaving out important information.
No one is trolling you, you're just not painting a complete picture.
I'm not actually trying to paint a picture, though.
I'm not defending this person's claim. I've already said I don't think the claim is accurate.
Let me remind you what my point is here. I'm explaining why calling the things he said, "not accurate in any way" isn't reasonable and is negative.
It's not accurate in any way.
The person is eating in a calorie deficit.
Net fat storage in a calorie deficit doesn't happen.
The teachings of low carb gurus about "fat storing mode" triggered by insulin response are alarmist nonsense. Fat storage/usage is a normal part of the energy cycle we all go through daily and the net result of it depends entirely on energy balance, not substrate balance like they'd like you to think.
Unless you think carbs don't trigger insulin or that insulin doesn't trigger fat storage, it's accurate in some ways.
Pedantry doesn't help posters who are new to the boards who are here and care about losing weight. They care about the net result, and the net result is that they aren't storing fat in an energy deficit, thus, saying that they are in "fat storage mode" due to carbohydrate intake is alarmist nonsense because it won't be permanent fat storage. That stored fat will be called into usage again as part of the normal energy cycle.
It's not pedantry. It's my whole point. It is quite literally the only argument I'm making.4 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Yes, your 2nd bolded part is not accurate. Protein also triggers an insulin response. That is what anvil is saying.
Except that protein isn't one of the three molecules.
Are you all just trolling me? This can't be for real.
You're talking in circles. If you're narrowly defining your three molecules and then citing that one of them causes glucose overload leading to insulin spikes and fat storage, it's only right that someone else can point out another molecule that you didn't mention another molecule that also causes insulin spikes.
You're leaving out important information.
No one is trolling you, you're just not painting a complete picture.
I'm not actually trying to paint a picture, though.
I'm not defending this person's claim. I've already said I don't think the claim is accurate.
Let me remind you what my point is here. I'm explaining why calling the things he said, "not accurate in any way" isn't reasonable and is negative.
It's not accurate in any way.
The person is eating in a calorie deficit.
Net fat storage in a calorie deficit doesn't happen.
The teachings of low carb gurus about "fat storing mode" triggered by insulin response are alarmist nonsense. Fat storage/usage is a normal part of the energy cycle we all go through daily and the net result of it depends entirely on energy balance, not substrate balance like they'd like you to think.
Unless you think carbs don't trigger insulin or that insulin doesn't trigger fat storage, it's accurate in some ways.
Pedantry doesn't help posters who are new to the boards who are here and care about losing weight. They care about the net result, and the net result is that they aren't storing fat in an energy deficit, thus, saying that they are in "fat storage mode" due to carbohydrate intake is alarmist nonsense because it won't be permanent fat storage. That stored fat will be called into usage again as part of the normal energy cycle.
It's not pedantry. It's my whole point. It is quite literally the only argument I'm making.
And how is this helping the OP?
Correcting the false information was helping the OP.
She isn't in "fat storage mode" in the way that she'd think from that post. It needed to be addressed.8 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
My only point is that this person was being treated unkindly. If you think that's irrelevant, don't respond to me because I don't have another point.
Otherwise, I'm saying that there are actual physiological truths behind what this person is saying and it's not nice to treat them like they are just spouting complete nonsense. This is a human being.
As I've repeated, I don't think this person was accurate. I just think it's unreasonable to say they are not accurate in any way.
Ah, so you feel I was unkind. Would it be kind to have this kind of inaccuracy not addressed and have someone act on it as truth? You have 463 posts. I have almost 5000, anvil almost 12000 and GottaBurn over 4000. How much myth and inaccuracy do you we think we have seen passed off as true over that amount of participation. It happens every day. If you look back a few post, you will see my encouragement of the poster I originally challenged.
Also, I think it perfectly reasonable to challenge bad data. Maybe I could do that in a less abrasive way and I will take that into consideration. Thank you.
first off, i still believe every word i posted. the only thing i regret is not having a source for you all to read. my deliverance could have been better but at no point did i admit i was "wrong".
I STILL lost weight and had more level consistent energy eating low carb high fat. no other diet has done that for me. I have lost weight the others ways, but i felt awful. i feel great and i don't need 100+ grams of carbs a day to function. Maybe you do.
All I did was adjust my macros (CALORIES WERE EXACTLY THE SAME) and I lost ten pounds in a month (up to 5 was water weight).
There you go, no STATS here, just my personal experience.6 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
My only point is that this person was being treated unkindly. If you think that's irrelevant, don't respond to me because I don't have another point.
Otherwise, I'm saying that there are actual physiological truths behind what this person is saying and it's not nice to treat them like they are just spouting complete nonsense. This is a human being.
As I've repeated, I don't think this person was accurate. I just think it's unreasonable to say they are not accurate in any way.
Ah, so you feel I was unkind. Would it be kind to have this kind of inaccuracy not addressed and have someone act on it as truth? You have 463 posts. I have almost 5000, anvil almost 12000 and GottaBurn over 4000. How much myth and inaccuracy do you we think we have seen passed off as true over that amount of participation. It happens every day. If you look back a few post, you will see my encouragement of the poster I originally challenged.
Also, I think it perfectly reasonable to challenge bad data. Maybe I could do that in a less abrasive way and I will take that into consideration. Thank you.
Oh my god, thank you so much for that. That really is all I wanted to say. I really appreciate you hearing me. I worry that I sound sarcastic right now but I'm not trying to be. I genuinely appreciate this a great deal.
3 -
In addition, some people are more insulin resistant than others. That's why some people can get away with eating higher amounts of carbs than others. This is why some people need to be under 20g net carbs to while others can be at 50g and still be in ketosis.
You'll only know which type of person you are if you try the Dr. Oz Cracker Test
*100% of this post is a joke*14 -
In addition, some people are more insulin resistant than others. That's why some people can get away with eating higher amounts of carbs than others. This is why some people need to be under 20g net carbs to while others can be at 50g and still be in ketosis.
You'll only know which type of person you are if you try the Dr. Oz Cracker Test
*100% of this post is a joke*
LOL1 -
Looking at your log. That looks like way too many carbs as there is little room for vegetables and healthy protiens. The human body requires many different protiens, vitamins and minerals to simply function. Everyone needs fats, carbs, salts, but also the vitamins, mineralsand protiens found in greens and fresh fruits and meats. A lot of high carb foods, such as white bread, has very little of the other nutrients you need to function best. There is a reason for the term "balanced" diet.
If you will find yourself struggling:
The best thing you can do is see an MD that is also a registered dietician. If not then find a registered dietician, not a nutritionist. An RD requires a bachelor's at minimum, not so with a nutritionist (you can literally have a GED and do an online program with very little regulation and become a "certified nutritionist"). Log everything you eat and do, then get thier help.4 -
Well, that was a fun read!
Anywhooo-Op, my own experience: when I started this whole thing I didn't even know what a macro was. I was facing a new medical diagnosis of prediabetes, had never tried losing weight before, had been given no direction by my (former) doctor, and I jumped in blind. I proceeded to lose 50lbs and improve all my health markers, including normalizing my glucose number, all without tracking a single macro. I only focused on reducing my calorie intake, and hitting the correct calorie deficit for my weight loss goals.
I'm now several years into maintaining the loss, and I still don't pay any attention to my macros/don't track them. Because of my medical history I get blood work done twice a year and they consistently come back good with no issues or concerns. I take no medications and have a current bmi of 19.9.
There's a lot of emphasis on finding the 'correct' macros ratios but I don't bother with them and it hasn't negatively impacted my goals at all. I control my weight by my calorie intake and eat a balanced diet that includes all the foods I enjoy. That's worked brilliantly for me 4 -
Hi, I'm Jimmy and I'm a carboholic. *waits for greetings* Ok, so I'm not the most fit but I have done a ridiculous amount of research and thought I'd share. It's very simple. If all you're going for is weight loss, you just need to expend more calories than you intake regularly.
Now, here's where it gets tricky. Depending upon your physiology and genetics, what you eat will make that easier to accomplish.
I can eat a 12 oz steak and 6 oz of shrimp and if someone asks if I'm hungry, the answer is HELL NO! I could not eat another bite of a protein or fat. But they put tres leches cake in front of me and I'll get it down. The problem is that carbs don't stick around. They're like sprinters. You take it in, it looks around to see if it's needed (for muscles that have lost glycogen from working out, or calories if needed) and when they don't find anything, they go hang out with their adipose friends until called. Adipose is fat on us. Not fatS, but fat.
Protein and fats are more satisfying and curb most people's cravings where carbs actually spike insulin which not only makes you more hungry but your body learns when you'll take in large doses of carbs and will PREEMPTIVELY release insulin to combat that sugar next day at the same time. That's why if you have a dozen donuts for breakfast, the next day you wake up famished. A dozen eggs. Not the same result.
In long synopsis: Calories in < calories out = weight loss. How you feel during that weight loss is based on what food choices and metrics you choose.14 -
In regards to what macros are satiating, that is entirely individual, so blanket statments about what's filling and what's not don't hold universally true.
In an attempt to rid myself of the last 5 vanity pounds, I started low carbing.
That was a BIG mistake.
It left me hungry, full of cravings, and led to a cycle of binge/restrict that I stayed in for far too long until I figured out that my macros were the problem.
I ended up ultimately gaining weight.
For me personally, I need starchy carbs like whole grains and tubers and beans in my diet in order to feel satiated. Fat and protein alone don't do a thing for me.
13 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »3) Yes, glucose does trigger an insulin response. But it is not the only molecule that triggers an insulin response. As I have repeated several times now, protein triggers an insulin response equal to carbohydrate. Deliberately leaving protein out of the discussion is cherry-picking to make an irrelevant point. It makes as much sense as saying "between chickens, apples and elephants, chickens are the only thing in the world that has wings."
My only point is that this person was being treated unkindly. If you think that's irrelevant, don't respond to me because I don't have another point.
Otherwise, I'm saying that there are actual physiological truths behind what this person is saying and it's not nice to treat them like they are just spouting complete nonsense. This is a human being.
As I've repeated, I don't think this person was accurate. I just think it's unreasonable to say they are not accurate in any way.
Ah, so you feel I was unkind. Would it be kind to have this kind of inaccuracy not addressed and have someone act on it as truth? You have 463 posts. I have almost 5000, anvil almost 12000 and GottaBurn over 4000. How much myth and inaccuracy do you we think we have seen passed off as true over that amount of participation. It happens every day. If you look back a few post, you will see my encouragement of the poster I originally challenged.
Also, I think it perfectly reasonable to challenge bad data. Maybe I could do that in a less abrasive way and I will take that into consideration. Thank you.
Oh my god, thank you so much for that. That really is all I wanted to say. I really appreciate you hearing me. I worry that I sound sarcastic right now but I'm not trying to be. I genuinely appreciate this a great deal.
You don't sound sarcastic at all. You are quite welcome. I am direct and blunt in my communication style. I realize that can come across as abrasive. I am trying to be better at being less abrasive. It is a work in progress... 3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »In regards to what macros are satiating, that is entirely individual, so blanket statments about what's filling and what's not don't hold universally true.
In an attempt to rid myself of the last 5 vanity pounds, I started low carbing.
That was a BIG mistake.
It left me hungry, full of cravings, and led to a cycle of binge/restrict that I stayed in for far too long until I figured out that my macros were the problem.
I ended up ultimately gaining weight.
For me personally, I need starchy carbs like whole grains and tubers and beans in my diet in order to feel satiated. Fat and protein alone don't do a thing for me.
this is how i felt the first couple of times i tried to eat low carb. that problem was fixed for me when I added more fat into my diet. everybody's body is different tho, carbs are the devil for some (like me) while they play nice with others (like you)
consider yourself lucky that carbs are kind to your waistline and if you ever do low carb again, try high fat and see how it works for you and if it makes you feel better 3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »In regards to what macros are satiating, that is entirely individual, so blanket statments about what's filling and what's not don't hold universally true.
In an attempt to rid myself of the last 5 vanity pounds, I started low carbing.
That was a BIG mistake.
It left me hungry, full of cravings, and led to a cycle of binge/restrict that I stayed in for far too long until I figured out that my macros were the problem.
I ended up ultimately gaining weight.
For me personally, I need starchy carbs like whole grains and tubers and beans in my diet in order to feel satiated. Fat and protein alone don't do a thing for me.
Strangely enough, when Dr. Susanna Holt compiled The Satiety Index as a result of her research, a number of carb-heavy foods were widely found to be significantly more satiating than proteins overall:
http://calorielab.com/news/2008/04/25/the-satiety-index-comparing-apples-and-oranges/
Satiety definitely does vary between people.10 -
Great job in taking control of your health!! The key thing you said is that you eat a balanced diet. So, you are balancing your macros adequately. For most that is sufficient. It is when you have more specific sports or fitness related goals that macros become more important. Particularly protein. In the case of the OP, what she posted was not balanced and was carb heavy at the expense of protein and fats.OliveGirl128 wrote: »Well, that was a fun read!
Anywhooo-Op, my own experience: when I started this whole thing I didn't even know what a macro was. I was facing a new medical diagnosis of prediabetes, had never tried losing weight before, had been given no direction by my (former) doctor, and I jumped in blind. I proceeded to lose 50lbs and improve all my health markers, including normalizing my glucose number, all without tracking a single macro. I only focused on reducing my calorie intake, and hitting the correct calorie deficit for my weight loss goals.
I'm now several years into maintaining the loss, and I still don't pay any attention to my macros/don't track them. Because of my medical history I get blood work done twice a year and they consistently come back good with no issues or concerns. I take no medications and have a current bmi of 19.9.
There's a lot of emphasis on finding the 'correct' macros ratios but I don't bother with them and it hasn't negatively impacted my goals at all. I control my weight by my calorie intake and eat a balanced diet that includes all the foods I enjoy. That's worked brilliantly for me
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »In regards to what macros are satiating, that is entirely individual, so blanket statments about what's filling and what's not don't hold universally true.
In an attempt to rid myself of the last 5 vanity pounds, I started low carbing.
That was a BIG mistake.
It left me hungry, full of cravings, and led to a cycle of binge/restrict that I stayed in for far too long until I figured out that my macros were the problem.
I ended up ultimately gaining weight.
For me personally, I need starchy carbs like whole grains and tubers and beans in my diet in order to feel satiated. Fat and protein alone don't do a thing for me.
this is how i felt the first couple of times i tried to eat low carb. that problem was fixed for me when I added more fat into my diet. everybody's body is different tho, carbs are the devil for some (like me) while they play nice with others (like you)
consider yourself lucky that carbs are kind to your waistline and if you ever do low carb again, try high fat and see how it works for you and if it makes you feel better
I have familial hypercholesterolemia. A higher fat intake is contraindicated for that.
Editing to add:
Before this go-round with weight loss, I low carbed for ten years, and that was before I had a cholesterol problem.
I had a high fat intake then, but low carbing never did do the trick of naturally satiating me the way it was supposed to. I did lose weight, but only to a point. The lowest I ever got was 150, and that was still overweight (I'm 5'1").
Fat is not satiating for everyone, it's apparently not for me. I need a certain amount to feel satisfied (anything less than 40 grams leaves me a bit crave-y), but more than that is just wasting calories better spent on carbs if they're not being spent on protein.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »In regards to what macros are satiating, that is entirely individual, so blanket statments about what's filling and what's not don't hold universally true.
In an attempt to rid myself of the last 5 vanity pounds, I started low carbing.
That was a BIG mistake.
It left me hungry, full of cravings, and led to a cycle of binge/restrict that I stayed in for far too long until I figured out that my macros were the problem.
I ended up ultimately gaining weight.
For me personally, I need starchy carbs like whole grains and tubers and beans in my diet in order to feel satiated. Fat and protein alone don't do a thing for me.
Particularly with women, satiety may even vary greatly week to week for an individual. I'm typically able to anticipate when I'm going to have a carb-heavy week due to cravings & when I can cut back with relative ease.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »In regards to what macros are satiating, that is entirely individual, so blanket statments about what's filling and what's not don't hold universally true.
In an attempt to rid myself of the last 5 vanity pounds, I started low carbing.
That was a BIG mistake.
It left me hungry, full of cravings, and led to a cycle of binge/restrict that I stayed in for far too long until I figured out that my macros were the problem.
I ended up ultimately gaining weight.
For me personally, I need starchy carbs like whole grains and tubers and beans in my diet in order to feel satiated. Fat and protein alone don't do a thing for me.
this is how i felt the first couple of times i tried to eat low carb. that problem was fixed for me when I added more fat into my diet. everybody's body is different tho, carbs are the devil for some (like me) while they play nice with others (like you)
consider yourself lucky that carbs are kind to your waistline and if you ever do low carb again, try high fat and see how it works for you and if it makes you feel better
I have familial hypercholesterolemia. A higher fat intake is contraindicated for that.
Well sounds like you figured out what works for you. keep on keepin on.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »In regards to what macros are satiating, that is entirely individual, so blanket statments about what's filling and what's not don't hold universally true.
In an attempt to rid myself of the last 5 vanity pounds, I started low carbing.
That was a BIG mistake.
It left me hungry, full of cravings, and led to a cycle of binge/restrict that I stayed in for far too long until I figured out that my macros were the problem.
I ended up ultimately gaining weight.
For me personally, I need starchy carbs like whole grains and tubers and beans in my diet in order to feel satiated. Fat and protein alone don't do a thing for me.
Particularly with women, satiety may even vary greatly week to week for an individual. I'm typically able to anticipate when I'm going to have a carb-heavy week due to cravings & when I can cut back with relative ease.
I might be past the age when week to week fluctuations happen. Just sayin' 7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions