Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Low calorie or low carb what really works?
Replies
-
Low carb because more volume more satiety... also trying to eat every 3 hours( waiting more if ure not hugnry) works. but i love carby foods i have them too sometimes.
In my experience, a low carbohydrate diet results in lower volume because I'm limiting vegetables and including more higher fat foods (which are usually more calorie dense).10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Low carb because more volume more satiety... also trying to eat every 3 hours( waiting more if ure not hugnry) works. but i love carby foods i have them too sometimes.
In my experience, a low carbohydrate diet results in lower volume because I'm limiting vegetables and including more higher fat foods (which are usually more calorie dense).
My experience as well. After all, carbs are 4 cal per g, and fats are 9 (water content matters too, but many higher carb foods, like fruit, has lots of water, whereas many high fat foods do not).6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Low carb because more volume more satiety... also trying to eat every 3 hours( waiting more if ure not hugnry) works. but i love carby foods i have them too sometimes.
In my experience, a low carbohydrate diet results in lower volume because I'm limiting vegetables and including more higher fat foods (which are usually more calorie dense).
I agee with you, too. To eat low carb, I'd need to reduce veggies and fruits dramatically compared to my preferred produce-heavy way of eating (200g+ carbs most days, in maintenance, but little of what the average person usually visualizes when one says "carbs"). Low carb would definitely require a lower physical volume, for me. (I tend to under-eat fats, unless I pay attention. I shoot for 50g minimum, and usually am not far over that.)
But I think when some people undertake a low-carb diet, they reduce some relatively low-satiety foods, that either seem low-volume because they aren't filling, or that are visually small. I'm thinking of things like the classic airy hamburger buns and sub rolls that don't seem substantial; french fries and other calorie-dense, physically small things that are characterized as "carbs" but really get more calories from fat than carbs, including pizza; salads like potato salad or macaroni salad that are low-veg but high fat and moderate carb and tend to be small portions.
Some - by their own report - increase vegetable intake vs. their former way of eating, in the form of lower-carb veggies like leafy greens that are visually big, or - if paying attention to net carbs - are higher fiber so visually large and seem weighty/satiating. It's mind-boggling to me - and I'm admitting a personal limitation here, not criticizing others' eating - that the amounts of vegetables some describe as such are "lots of veggies". My definition of "lots of veggies" differs, because of my personal taste preferences.
In that kind of picture, I can see how someone - especially someone who didn't log their previous eating and actually see the macro counts - can be pursuing a low-carb diet and feel like there's more volume. Satiety and volume, of course, are related but not tightly, universally linked.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Low carb because more volume more satiety... also trying to eat every 3 hours( waiting more if ure not hugnry) works. but i love carby foods i have them too sometimes.
In my experience, a low carbohydrate diet results in lower volume because I'm limiting vegetables and including more higher fat foods (which are usually more calorie dense).
I agee with you, too. To eat low carb, I'd need to reduce veggies and fruits dramatically compared to my preferred produce-heavy way of eating (200g+ carbs most days, in maintenance, but little of what the average person usually visualizes when one says "carbs"). Low carb would definitely require a lower physical volume, for me. (I tend to under-eat fats, unless I pay attention. I shoot for 50g minimum, and usually am not far over that.)
But I think when some people undertake a low-carb diet, they reduce some relatively low-satiety foods, that either seem low-volume because they aren't filling, or that are visually small. I'm thinking of things like the classic airy hamburger buns and sub rolls that don't seem substantial; french fries and other calorie-dense, physically small things that are characterized as "carbs" but really get more calories from fat than carbs, including pizza; salads like potato salad or macaroni salad that are low-veg but high fat and moderate carb and tend to be small portions.
Some - by their own report - increase vegetable intake vs. their former way of eating, in the form of lower-carb veggies like leafy greens that are visually big, or - if paying attention to net carbs - are higher fiber so visually large and seem weighty/satiating. It's mind-boggling to me - and I'm admitting a personal limitation here, not criticizing others' eating - that the amounts of vegetables some describe as such are "lots of veggies". My definition of "lots of veggies" differs, because of my personal taste preferences.
In that kind of picture, I can see how someone - especially someone who didn't log their previous eating and actually see the macro counts - can be pursuing a low-carb diet and feel like there's more volume. Satiety and volume, of course, are related but not tightly, universally linked.
Yes, the majority of my carbohydrates are the type that make low carbohydrate people say "Oh, I don't mean *those* carbs" because they're leafy and green and/or full of fiber. But I'd still have to cut a lot of them in order to have a low carbohydrate diet.
Purely anecdotal, but everyone I've ever known who said that low carbohydrate diets contain "lots of veggies" seems to be coming from a way of eating where they ate hardly any (and it's great if that works for them, but vegetables are something that I'm not willing to limit -- other than to meet my calorie goals).5 -
Tried low carb, actually put on weight; guess calories really do count🤷♀️6
-
If I eat fewer calories, I lose weight. If I eat fewer simple starches & sugars and avoid calorie-free sweeteners, my hunger pangs are under control. If I maintain low-salt habits, I don't hold a lot of water weight. If I exercise, I feel better but it can pique my appetite.
All of the above, except the first sentence, applies to only some (but perhaps many) of us. The first sentence, on the other hand, is key for all of us.5 -
Mm.
Mmm.0 -
My personal experience is any calorie deficit food plan will result in weight loss. It's probably pretty clear that what goes in your body has various health benefits, but strictly speaking on weight loss - a calorie deficit means you will lose weight based on the fact you are burning more than you are taking in.
I've been pretty strict for the past 6 months with simply counting calories (using the app) and keeping a realistic weekly weight loss goal (1.5-2lbs) and have dropped 40lbs and not given a single concern of where my calories are coming from... Which drives my wife crazy lol. She's done many different fad style diets and just doesn't seem to be able to stay with any one for a long enough time to see the results. While I plod along and just count those calories and watch those lbs melt away ha ha. On top of that I am also pretty regimented at this point about getting my fitness in as well, minimum 3x per week for about an hour each time.
Just my thoughts.0 -
When I was doing low carb I did notice that occasionally I would lose weight quite quickly, probably too quickly to be healthy. That's because I had no appetite and I chose low carb food which I didn't particularly enjoy.
So if you are doing low carb it's probably a good idea to track your intake, at least initially or once in a while.1 -
There is no clear cut answer. Different things work for different ppl. Doesn’t mean its “right or wrong”. Just means its “right or wrong” for you.1
-
The only thing that's for sure is burning more calories than you eat. Different "diets" work for different people/body types/metabolisms.0
-
DMTlovesyou wrote: »Im so confused about what really is the best and healthiest way to eat for weight loss and health.
The healthiest way to eat is one that ensures you are getting all your necessary nutrients. The best way to eat for fat loss is in an energy deficit...1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions