Low carb or low calorie.. advice please
Options
Replies
-
hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
Do you have a link to one of these studies that has debunked "100 times over" that calories aren't the issue?10 -
hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
Your last sentence is completely false. Fats and proteins also cause an insulin response. In fact, in studies, some proteins were found to produce a stronger insulin response than carbs. Fats and proteins do not directly raise blood glucose levels as carbs do, but all food requires insulin to be utilized.5 -
hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?3 -
hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
The intake may be the same, but is the output through exercise?
It is 100% about calories.3 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...2 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...
That would be interesting to see. It's been awhile since I saw someone on here with the stones to use that raving lunatic as a "source"0 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...
That would be interesting to see. It's been awhile since I saw someone on here with the stones to use that raving lunatic as a "source"
I think I saw it a couple nights ago. Mercola and Dr. Oz are frequently "sourced".1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »A calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. Low carb is a tool you can use for that or to address health concerns.
Low fat and high fiber eating is also a means of addressing health concerns. So is eating at a calorie deficit. So is eating a wide variety of nutritious foods. So is limiting saturated fat. So is limiting sodium. So is limiting cholesterol.
It all depends on your particular health concerns, so general "health concerns" claims made about any specific diet and meant to be applied in a broad sense are rather silly.
For most people, diets aren't medical prescriptions, even if there are some limits placed upon them by medical conditions.
What drives me batty when I mention LCHF, it is nit-picked at, repeatedly in various threads.
I mean, really? Saying Low carb is tool you can use to meet a calorie deficit or to address health concerns is wrong? I KNOW it depends on the health issue and I am sure that the vast majority of people would realize that too. I did not say ALL health concerns. I said people can use it to address health concerns... or should I now be concerned that people will assume I meant that eating LCHF will address someone else's health concern? Let's give people some credit! I think people know LCHF is not magic.
I don't think we need to mention every other diet under the sun that can address a health issue in a "Low Carb or Low Calorie?" thread... Although I guess mentioning limiting food can help some issues would fit here.
ETA Sorry OP. I let some MFP history amd my flu crankiness shine through there. But if my original comment did confuse you, I'm sorry.
The thing is, you never see a moderate way of eating touted as doing all sorts of magical things. Non-ethical vegans do. Regular ethical vegans don't, vegetarians don't, higher carb moderators don't. That's what I take issue with.
Actually I usually see that post oten immediatly after someone claims a health benefit from a different diet. Stuff like:
LCHF helped reverse my T2d - So would losing weight, adding fibre and exercising...
Veganism did x,y,z - So does eating a healthy steak once in a while...
Following a paleo diet helped wih my autoimmune disease - So would eating a healthy well balanced diet...
I see it enough. More than enough. But if it is possibly a helpful, healthful diet, say it. Why not?
So often you see LCHF fanatics (not you) make claims that the only way to reverse T2d, insulin resistance and a whole host of other conditions is through keto. It is then followed with a whole bunch of woo. You and I both know that the reality is that keto can help these conditions but many have had equal success with moderate macro ratios while losing weight and increasing exercise. LCHF is a great tool for some to achieve their desired results and should be promoted as such. However, it is too often promoted as being a magic solution and the only solution. Of course people that make these claims are going to get responses of the likes you just posted. It is because too many are going this option thinking it is the only way to lose weight.
Rule of thumb, if LCHF is not sustainable for you then just don't do it. There are other way of achieving the same results that you can maintain for life. If you can make permanent changes that reduce your carb intake and doing this enables you to stay within calorie goals for life, while giving you the desired health benefits then go for it as finding what works for you is half the battle with weight loss.4 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...
That would be interesting to see. It's been awhile since I saw someone on here with the stones to use that raving lunatic as a "source"
Really...?, I think I just saw him sourced the other day, in one of the 54 diet soda is the debil threads.1 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...
That would be interesting to see. It's been awhile since I saw someone on here with the stones to use that raving lunatic as a "source"
Really...?, I think I just saw him sourced the other day, in one of the 54 diet soda is the debil threads.
I always miss all the good stuff. I love the crazies on here. They are highly entertaining.1 -
hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
ive lost over 40 lbs doing low fat(due to health issues) and moderate to high carb because I was in a deficit.I still eat all the things I want just in lesser amounts and I move more. I gained weight moving less than I was and eating the same amount of calories I did when I was more active. not because of what I was eating.2 -
Low carb never worked for me, at least not for long term. I wouldn't call what i had the greatest success with as "low calorie", either. Eating adequate calories to keep up with my fitness goals is what works for me.0
-
If you aren't tracking calories then low carb probably works better than some other diets because many carbs are high calorie. You cut them out and you have more chance that you "might" be in a deficit. I've done lo carb before and I did lose weight on it (and that was due to a calorie deficit which I wasn't tracking) but the problem for me was I could not sustain lo carb. I kept weight off for about 10 years by not eating hardly any bread, pasta, rice and processed carbs, but then I was in a situation for two weeks for work (a few thousand miles from home in a rural area) and could not control what was prepared for meals--someone else did the cooking. The stuff that was prepared was high carb, and I had to eat it 3x a day or starve. At the time I didn't know anything about calories (or I didn't believe in CICO) so it just made a mess out of my eating. I tried at first to not eat the carbs but the meals were so heavy with them I had no choice. From then on, (2011), I gained about 60 lbs, due to stress and overeating to aliviate the stress.
As of today I've lost 24 lbs. (since the last week of June) following MFP and CICO. It is such a relief to be able to know what I need to be eating and not cutting out food groups or doing extreme diets. I recommend just following the MFP and tracking calories (and micros if that's important to the OP). I've met 25% of my goal, and 3 months ago I didn't think there was anyway that I would be able to lose weight.1 -
lucerorojo wrote: »If you aren't tracking calories then low carb probably works better than some other diets because many carbs are high calorie.
Not really. Carbs are 4 calories per gram, same as protein. Fat is 9 calories per gram. Many foods that tend to be high cal and not that filling are a mix of both (chips, fries, cake, donuts, so on). Other high cal foods may be a mix of all three macros (burgers, pizza, fried chicken, fish and chips). Often the highest amount of calories are actually from fat. However, weirdly some people call these things "carbs" or blame only the carbs for the high cals. Drives me crazy, although I know fighting this is a losing battle. Still, I can't help myself sometimes. ;-)
Plain carbs include fruit, oats, plain bread, potatoes, pasta, so on. Vegetables are mostly carbs too. I personally could not overeat plain potatoes or bread or rice or pasta -- if I overeat those foods it's because I add a source of fat (and often protein). Pasta (in a reasonable amount) with some vegetables and lean meat can be a quite low cal and filling meal, for me, anyway. Have, instead, a high fat dish like alfredo or carbonara and the calories go way up.
That aside, yes, if you don't want to log it can work for many people (especially early on) to cut carbs, since the dramatic diet change can make it hard to overeat (at least until you adjust), you may cut out the foods you normally overeat (many of which, again, may actually have more calories from fat as carbs, but still are high carb), and in some cases you may find that fewer calories cause you to be full (again often because you radically change your diet or cut out some trigger foods).
Some of us, and I am one, prefer a lower carb diet too (although I lost weight by focusing on calories).
For the record, many people can also radically cut fat and lose without thinking about it, or go plant-based and lose without thinking about it, for the same reasons. Whether it works longer term depends on you find the way of eating enjoyable and sustainable.As of today I've lost 24 lbs. (since the last week of June) following MFP and CICO. It is such a relief to be able to know what I need to be eating and not cutting out food groups or doing extreme diets. I recommend just following the MFP and tracking calories (and micros if that's important to the OP). I've met 25% of my goal, and 3 months ago I didn't think there was anyway that I would be able to lose weight.
Good advice.3 -
I think low calorie is the way to go...no health issues at all, sounds like I can have a wider variety of food as long as I count......ill hide the car keys and walk more ....thanks for the help (and the giggling at the answers!)2
-
Lemurcat, thank you for bringing up and explaining the use of fat (and sometimes protein) with carbs, and that many people call the end result a "carb." It's an important distinction.0
-
I just wanted to chime in and say low carb has not worked long term for me. Sure I lost weight and quickly, but I missed foods that I love that contained carbs. I was even cutting out healthy foods like bananas for fear of them being high carb. The weight came back on as I craved those foods.
I am going in a different direction and will be trying to eat now what I would like to eat at maintenance. Personally low carb was not sustainable, I have just written a post about it today and have had wonderful feedback. I wish you the best of luck on your weight loss journey.5 -
teags84mfp wrote: »I just wanted to chime in and say low carb has not worked long term for me. Sure I lost weight and quickly, but I missed foods that I love that contained carbs. I was even cutting out healthy foods like bananas for fear of them being high carb. The weight came back on as I craved those foods.
I am going in a different direction and will be trying to eat now what I would like to eat at maintenance. Personally low carb was not sustainable, I have just written a post about it today and have had wonderful feedback. I wish you the best of luck on your weight loss journey.
You bring up a good point, and one that I think many newer people don't truly appreciate. People need to get out of the "diet" mindset entirely and instead focus on food and lifestyle choices which can be incorporated on a permanent basis. Fad diets lead to the types of "yo-yo" effects we see so frequently because, as you point out, people find it difficult to stay on them long term. Part of the reason there is so little long term research out there in the peer reviewed literature about Keto and other extreme regimens is not a lack of desire to study it, but researchers can't find people willing to stay on it for years.
While purely anecdotal, I have seen this play out on my own friends list here on MFP on an ongoing and perpetual basis. The cyclical progression goes pretty much as follows:
1) New user joins MFP
2) New user makes forum post inquiring about a desire to "go" [insert named regimen here]
3) New user has initial success and is excited, claims their diet of choice is the reason for their success.
4) Over time the new user becomes bored and disillusioned with their fad diet, mostly due to it's restrictions and lack of variety.
5) Users diary completion and check in feeds start to become infrequent.
6) User falls off the face of the Earth entirely and does not log on again.
7) (Maybe) User comes back 6-8 months later and creates a "starting over" forum post to begin the process anew.11 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »teags84mfp wrote: »I just wanted to chime in and say low carb has not worked long term for me. Sure I lost weight and quickly, but I missed foods that I love that contained carbs. I was even cutting out healthy foods like bananas for fear of them being high carb. The weight came back on as I craved those foods.
I am going in a different direction and will be trying to eat now what I would like to eat at maintenance. Personally low carb was not sustainable, I have just written a post about it today and have had wonderful feedback. I wish you the best of luck on your weight loss journey.
You bring up a good point, and one that I think many newer people don't truly appreciate. People need to get out of the "diet" mindset entirely and instead focus on food and lifestyle choices which can be incorporated on a permanent basis. Fad diets lead to the types of "yo-yo" effects we see so frequently because, as you point out, people find it difficult to stay on them long term. Part of the reason there is so little long term research out there in the peer reviewed literature about Keto and other extreme regimens is not a lack of desire to study it, but researchers can't find people willing to stay on it for years.
While purely anecdotal, I have seen this play out on my own friends list here on MFP on an ongoing and perpetual basis. The cyclical progression goes pretty much as follows:
1) New user joins MFP
2) New user makes forum post inquiring about a desire to "go" [insert named regimen here]
3) New user has initial success and is excited, claims their diet of choice is the reason for their success.
4) Over time the new user becomes bored and disillusioned with their fad diet, mostly due to it's restrictions and lack of variety.
5) Users diary completion and check in feeds start to become infrequent.
6) User falls off the face of the Earth entirely and does not log on again.
7) (Maybe) User comes back 6-8 months later and creates a "starting over" forum post to begin the process anew.
You have described my situation to a tee Robby. Although I didn't start out on MFP when doing low carb, it took me a while to realise that it was not a long term way of eating for me. Actually I think I stumbed upon MFP after googling "cant stop binge eating". I sure am grateful I did.4 -
Reduce calorie intake to 1200-1300 calories per day... Carb intake should be 150 gms - 160 gms. Reducing carb intake improves insulin sensitivity and hence you'll be able to lose weight. Both are must.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions