Should I eat less carbs?
Replies
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.14 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!
Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.
Straw man much?
I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!
If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!
You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.
No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.
And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.
Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrientsAs long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macroI’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!
I’m not sure what your point is?
Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.
But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.
I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?
Like I asked, straw man much?
14 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!
Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.
Straw man much?
I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!
If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!
You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.
No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.
And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.
Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrientsAs long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macroI’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!
I’m not sure what your point is?
Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.
But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.
I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?
Like I asked, straw man much?
Who said you did? And please define "high" carbs in your view.6 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.
9 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!
Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.
Straw man much?
I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!
If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!
You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.
No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.
And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.
Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrientsAs long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macroI’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!
I’m not sure what your point is?
Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.
But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.
I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?
Like I asked, straw man much?
And you don't need a high fat diet to cover the essentials.. you need 11g of alpha lipoic acid to hit the essential goal, which can occur with about 20g of fats.
And typically, plant based (carb based diets) are revered to be the healthiest. All of the healthiest and longest living nations in our world are carb based.11 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
i was hoping you or someone else would weigh in...
i only took a look at a couple of the studies...in the first one the immediate thing i noticed was that while the results were statistically significant at 3 and 6 months - and 12 months, there was NO statistical significance between the results in the low carb and low fat groups....7 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.
I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.
So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.
But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.
One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.
But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.9 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!
Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.
Straw man much?
I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!
If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!
You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.
No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.
And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.
Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrientsAs long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macroI’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!
I’m not sure what your point is?
Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.
But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.
I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?
Like I asked, straw man much?
And you don't need a high fat diet to cover the essentials.. you need 11g of alpha lipoic acid to hit the essential goal, which can occur with about 20g of fats.
And typically, plant based (carb based diets) are revered to be the healthiest. All of the healthiest and longest living nations in our world are carb based.
I totally agree. I’m not promoting one diet over another. Both a varied diet in moderation and a LCHF could be equally optimal (for most people).
Both are just methods of eating in a calorie deficit.
I must say I have always been bemused by certain members of MFP’s forums and their insistence that only a calorie controlled varied diet is ‘true’ way of dieting.
Surely this site is about helping people find what works for them?
7 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.
I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.
So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.
But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.
One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.
But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.
^ Well said. Studies have proven that a ketogenic diet is sub-optimal for high-intensity athletic performance, if for no other reason than for impaired ATP resynthesis:
4 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.
I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.
So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.
But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.
One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.
But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.
Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?
I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!
8 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
i was hoping you or someone else would weigh in...
i only took a look at a couple of the studies...in the first one the immediate thing i noticed was that while the results were statistically significant at 3 and 6 months - and 12 months, there was NO statistical significance between the results in the low carb and low fat groups....
That link has been used since like 2014 and I spent the time looking at all 23 studies. Almost all had huge differences between protein intakes. The studies that looking at ab libitum, clearly demonstrated the benefits of low carb. But often, when you are cutting proteins and working on fats, you tend to naturally increase protein. That is because, unless you just add oils, you are generally getting fats + protein. And that is what drives people to be satiated. So what it can tell is this.. if you struggle to eating higher protein, focusing on a low carb diet might be highly beneficial to the individual. Not because carbs are evil, but rather that focusing on getting more fat and less cars, automatically helps drive higher consumption of protein.
But when you control for protein and calories, that is when you will find nothing is different.5 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.
I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.
So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.
But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.
One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.
But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.
^ Well said. Studies have proven that a ketogenic diet is sub-optimal for high-intensity athletic performance, if for no other reason than for impaired ATP resynthesis:
It’s a good job your body produces it’s own glycogen then!
11 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.
I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.
So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.
But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.
One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.
But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.
Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?
I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!
Every "low carb" athlete that is at the top of their sport, only trains occasionally as low carb. All of them either carb load intra season or prior to racing. The object of going low carb is to help train your body to oxidize fat faster, for whatever potential benefit.6 -
I've lost nearly 5 stone without having to cut carbs. I have carbs everyday...rice, potato, pasta, bread. There would be no way I could stick to any diet that banned certain foods. If you want to keep the weight coming off and be able to maintain that weight loss I would suggest you don't restrict yourself of any food you enjoy. I couldn't imagine having to live my whole life without eating the foods I enjoy.10
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.
I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.
So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.
But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.
One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.
But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.
^ Well said. Studies have proven that a ketogenic diet is sub-optimal for high-intensity athletic performance, if for no other reason than for impaired ATP resynthesis:
It’s a good job your body produces it’s own glycogen then!
True, but you wouldn't store the amount of glycogen as a high carber. So it would still be less optimal.
ETA: And for glucenogenesis to occur, that means you would have to take amino acids and fatty acids away from doing their normal job. And I rather have protein support muscle growth or sustainment than have it converted to glucose.8 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Wait, are you saying potatoes aren't nutritious?
Maybe they are, but they're full of evil toxins!
Acrylamide (a carcinogen)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#Occurrence_in_food_and_associated_health_risks
Glycoalkaloids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Toxicity
evil
And look at all the other chemicals in them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Comparison_to_other_major_staple_foods
I can't tell if you're being tongue in cheek. Says something about the kinds of people you sometimes see on these boards.3 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.
I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.
So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.
But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.
One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.
But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.
^ Well said. Studies have proven that a ketogenic diet is sub-optimal for high-intensity athletic performance, if for no other reason than for impaired ATP resynthesis:
It’s a good job your body produces it’s own glycogen then!
Your body only produces bare minimums. Nowhere near the, what was it, a pound or two or so of glycogen your body can store for sustained high intensity exercise? Releasing from stores is faster than creating on demand too.7 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
i was hoping you or someone else would weigh in...
i only took a look at a couple of the studies...in the first one the immediate thing i noticed was that while the results were statistically significant at 3 and 6 months - and 12 months, there was NO statistical significance between the results in the low carb and low fat groups....
That link has been used since like 2014 and I spent the time looking at all 23 studies. Almost all had huge differences between protein intakes. The studies that looking at ab libitum, clearly demonstrated the benefits of low carb. But often, when you are cutting proteins and working on fats, you tend to naturally increase protein. That is because, unless you just add oils, you are generally getting fats + protein. And that is what drives people to be satiated. So what it can tell is this.. if you struggle to eating higher protein, focusing on a low carb diet might be highly beneficial to the individual. Not because carbs are evil, but rather that focusing on getting more fat and less cars, automatically helps drive higher consumption of protein.
But when you control for protein and calories, that is when you will find nothing is different.
As was mentioned earlier in the thread in regard to the studies linked.4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients
you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?
The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!
As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro
Not necessarily...
FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?
Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!
I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!
Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants
Yes, I would like to see that also.
Here’s a few to start with
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets
Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?
These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.
Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.
Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.
i was hoping you or someone else would weigh in...
i only took a look at a couple of the studies...in the first one the immediate thing i noticed was that while the results were statistically significant at 3 and 6 months - and 12 months, there was NO statistical significance between the results in the low carb and low fat groups....
That link has been used since like 2014 and I spent the time looking at all 23 studies. Almost all had huge differences between protein intakes. The studies that looking at ab libitum, clearly demonstrated the benefits of low carb. But often, when you are cutting proteins and working on fats, you tend to naturally increase protein. That is because, unless you just add oils, you are generally getting fats + protein. And that is what drives people to be satiated. So what it can tell is this.. if you struggle to eating higher protein, focusing on a low carb diet might be highly beneficial to the individual. Not because carbs are evil, but rather that focusing on getting more fat and less cars, automatically helps drive higher consumption of protein.
But when you control for protein and calories, that is when you will find nothing is different.
As was mentioned earlier in the thread in regard to the studies linked.
Yep. Just reinforcing the point.2 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!
Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.
Straw man much?
I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!
If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!
You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.
No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.
And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.
Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrientsAs long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macroI’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!
I’m not sure what your point is?
Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.
But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.
I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?
Like I asked, straw man much?
Pretty much no one in this discussion is going to be too low on protein or fat for health given food availability. Things that take a bit more effort to have in satisfactory levels are omega 3 fats and micronutrients. Bacon and bulletproof coffee aren't useful for that. So going on about carbs being non essential is the strawman.
There are no single necessary sources of nutrients, so if one wants to be low carb (but makes an effort to get in a good variety of vegetables) or if one wants to be high carb plant based but similarly watches nutrients (and supplements a couple of things), then one is fine. It's probably easiest if one decides to eat a balanced varied diet with mostly plant based foods (lots of veg and fruit) and some fatty fish as the base of their diet, but then that has zero to do with cutting carbs at all.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions