Low Calories, or Low Carbs? What is better.....
Replies
-
LOL. You guys aren't reading what I am posting. I hope the OP gets the message. I did not say I felt more lethargic or less energetic on a low carb diet. I said that my performance differed on low carb as opposed to what you guys are calling "high carb", which wasn't really "high" at all, just HIGHER. I used HR as a gauge to measure this performance. If you want to discount my experience to "too many variables" ...then you are in denial. Personally, I advise anyone who is interested in a low carb diet to try it out for 2 weeks. I am sure you will find it will work for you...maybe for a long time, maybe only for a little while, but personally, it does not work for me. I believe that is what the OP was asking and what I had every right to answer.
I was on the diet for 4 months, twice.
Too many variables at play here in your case. Low-carb doesn't go well with everybody. But still, I don't like to hear when experts tell others that low-carb diets cause lethargy or decrease performance, because most people who respond well to the diet (at least weight-wise) also significantly improve their performance and feel more energetic, likely because their cells are no longer starved since fat stores are no longer inhibited by excess insulin. But for aerobic activity, carbs are just not that necessary.
You said your performance decreased (more effort to get the same work output), and I said I don't like experts saying low-carb diets generally cause decreased performance because it is largely untrue. I think you are getting defensive over nothing. The point is, there is no general consensus that low-carb diets decrease performance. It only affects probably the most elite athletes, but the average joe eats far more carbs than they could possibly need.
Too many variables means I can't draw any real conclusions based on your story because I dont have enough information.
Trying out a low-carb diet for 2 weeks doesn't give it a fair chance since it can take up to 6 weeks to adjust to it as far as athletic performance goes. I was lethargic during my workouts for about 3 weeks.
When you eat a diet consisting of mainly carbs, then you burn mostly glucose and much less fat. This can cause excessive hunger if you deplete your glucose stores or lethargy if you try to manually restrict calories against the body's will to eat. That is why low-carb diets work for so many people.0 -
LOL. You guys aren't reading what I am posting. I hope the OP gets the message. I did not say I felt more lethargic or less energetic on a low carb diet. I said that my performance differed on low carb as opposed to what you guys are calling "high carb", which wasn't really "high" at all, just HIGHER. I used HR as a gauge to measure this performance. If you want to discount my experience to "too many variables" ...then you are in denial. Personally, I advise anyone who is interested in a low carb diet to try it out for 2 weeks. I am sure you will find it will work for you...maybe for a long time, maybe only for a little while, but personally, it does not work for me. I believe that is what the OP was asking and what I had every right to answer.
I was on the diet for 4 months, twice.
Too many variables at play here in your case. Low-carb doesn't go well with everybody. But still, I don't like to hear when experts tell others that low-carb diets cause lethargy or decrease performance, because most people who respond well to the diet (at least weight-wise) also significantly improve their performance and feel more energetic, likely because their cells are no longer starved since fat stores are no longer inhibited by excess insulin. But for aerobic activity, carbs are just not that necessary.
You said your performance decreased (more effort to get the same work output), and I said I don't like experts saying low-carb diets generally cause decreased performance because it is largely untrue. I think you are getting defensive over nothing. The point is, there is no general consensus that low-carb diets decrease performance. It only affects probably the most elite athletes, but the average joe eats far more carbs than they could possibly need.
Too many variables means I can't draw any real conclusions based on your story because I dont have enough information.
Trying out a low-carb diet for 2 weeks doesn't give it a fair chance since it can take up to 6 weeks to adjust to it as far as athletic performance goes. I was lethargic during my workouts for about 3 weeks.
When you eat a diet consisting of mainly carbs, then you burn mostly glucose and much less fat. This can cause excessive hunger if you deplete your glucose stores or lethargy if you try to manually restrict calories against the body's will to eat. That is why low-carb diets work for so many people.
First of all, when you eat a low-carb diet, you effectively deplete your glucose stores. Your body is given no choice but to turn to your fat stores for energy. Burning these fat stores is more difficult for your body because the fat must first be converted into glucose before it can be burned. This process costs you an ATP molecule during glycolysis that burning carbs doesn't. So, It stands to reason that if your body is working hard converting, you are going to have a bit less energy. Fat oxidation also requires more oxygen than carbohydrate oxidation. I really do not understand how you think this is "largely untrue." You can poo poo the experts all you want, but this is a biological fact, and I would believe my prof who has a masters degree in human kinetics and a CSEP-CEP.
The reason you get hungry on a high-carb diet is because carbs are easier for your body to digest, not because of burning mainly glucose. Regardless of what you eat, your body burns the most readily available source first, i.e. carbs. Then, when your glucose stores are depleted, it switches to mainly burning fat. Lethargy comes from not having enough energy from your food, i.e. cutting your calories too low for your body to function.0 -
.0
-
It's virtually impossible to exceed your calorie goal if you workout fairly regularly and go for low carbs and just focus on hitting all your other nutrient goals. At least, I've found it very difficult. I exceed most of it by 2000 calories... that leaves another 1k ( or 5000 if I just wanted to maintain my weight )
There is a very noticeable difference on days when I eat 200+ carbs and days I only eat 50. At least, as far as running goes.
There is also a very noticeable difference in how fast I drop weight on days where I consume 50 compared to 200+.
There is a third variable though. One that's largely unknown and foreign to most and is just barely catching on
And it has to do with intermittent fasting. You can actually adapt your body to become efficient at using fat as a fuel source.
I did mostly low carb diet for the past... oh... 7 months now ( 140 lbs lost ) There is still a difference. Days where I consume an entire Large pizza I can sprint a 5k fairly easily. Days where I get 50carbs... I kind of struggle a bit to make it. Definitely takes more effort.0 -
It's virtually impossible to exceed your calorie goal if you workout fairly regularly and go for low carbs and just focus on hitting all your other nutrient goals. At least, I've found it very difficult.
n=1
Just because your appetite works that way, don't assume this applies to the rest of the population.0 -
There is also a very noticeable difference in how fast I drop weight on days where I consume 50 compared to 200+.
There is a third variable though. One that's largely unknown and foreign to most and is just barely catching on And it has to do with intermittent fasting. You can actually adapt your body to become efficient at using fat as a fuel source.
might you be confusing water weight with actual fat loss?0 -
I am for a healthy lifestyle. I have to limit my carbs anyway, so I just try to follow a lower carb, low fat diet.
0 -
I've never worried about carbs, frankly, and I've lost nearly 30 lbs. since August.
Calories are all I keep track of, and it seems to be working for me. Moderation is key, I suppose.0 -
I guess there's a small chance that my scales wrong, but it's been consistent since I started in how the way I ate carbs effected my weight.. It also measures water weight pretty accurately, which I do midfast to get an accurate read. I do keep track of my waist, though, and that doesn't lie. Day 1 of fast I dropped all the water weight ( 9lbs ) Since then it has been consistent in the drop of actual weight. The fat % has also been steadily going down... BMI .. eh. Does anyone still bother to use that ?
My walls always seemed to occur during weeks with lots of snacking on carb foods. Example- Low fat Yogurt VS Peanuts. Special K Snack crisps VS Cottage Cheese. Similar calories... just lots of carbs. I still lost, just not nearly as fast. Weight always would jump up like 10 lbs from water. Then a few days would pass. I would take a few days easy with carbs and I would be like maybe 1/4 a lb below where I was before once the water weight was gone.0 -
Bump0
-
LOL. You guys aren't reading what I am posting. I hope the OP gets the message. I did not say I felt more lethargic or less energetic on a low carb diet. I said that my performance differed on low carb as opposed to what you guys are calling "high carb", which wasn't really "high" at all, just HIGHER. I used HR as a gauge to measure this performance. If you want to discount my experience to "too many variables" ...then you are in denial. Personally, I advise anyone who is interested in a low carb diet to try it out for 2 weeks. I am sure you will find it will work for you...maybe for a long time, maybe only for a little while, but personally, it does not work for me. I believe that is what the OP was asking and what I had every right to answer.
I was on the diet for 4 months, twice.
Too many variables at play here in your case. Low-carb doesn't go well with everybody. But still, I don't like to hear when experts tell others that low-carb diets cause lethargy or decrease performance, because most people who respond well to the diet (at least weight-wise) also significantly improve their performance and feel more energetic, likely because their cells are no longer starved since fat stores are no longer inhibited by excess insulin. But for aerobic activity, carbs are just not that necessary.
You said your performance decreased (more effort to get the same work output), and I said I don't like experts saying low-carb diets generally cause decreased performance because it is largely untrue. I think you are getting defensive over nothing. The point is, there is no general consensus that low-carb diets decrease performance. It only affects probably the most elite athletes, but the average joe eats far more carbs than they could possibly need.
Too many variables means I can't draw any real conclusions based on your story because I dont have enough information.
Trying out a low-carb diet for 2 weeks doesn't give it a fair chance since it can take up to 6 weeks to adjust to it as far as athletic performance goes. I was lethargic during my workouts for about 3 weeks.
When you eat a diet consisting of mainly carbs, then you burn mostly glucose and much less fat. This can cause excessive hunger if you deplete your glucose stores or lethargy if you try to manually restrict calories against the body's will to eat. That is why low-carb diets work for so many people.
First of all, when you eat a low-carb diet, you effectively deplete your glucose stores. Your body is given no choice but to turn to your fat stores for energy. Burning these fat stores is more difficult for your body because the fat must first be converted into glucose before it can be burned. This process costs you an ATP molecule during glycolysis that burning carbs doesn't. So, It stands to reason that if your body is working hard converting, you are going to have a bit less energy. Fat oxidation also requires more oxygen than carbohydrate oxidation. I really do not understand how you think this is "largely untrue." You can poo poo the experts all you want, but this is a biological fact, and I would believe my prof who has a masters degree in human kinetics and a CSEP-CEP.
The reason you get hungry on a high-carb diet is because carbs are easier for your body to digest, not because of burning mainly glucose. Regardless of what you eat, your body burns the most readily available source first, i.e. carbs. Then, when your glucose stores are depleted, it switches to mainly burning fat. Lethargy comes from not having enough energy from your food, i.e. cutting your calories too low for your body to function.
For aerobic activity the cost of burning fat instead of glucose is insignificant once the body is adapted to it. When you burn primarily glucose, your body hits the wall when the time comes that glucose is depleted. By training yourself to burn fat most of the time, you won't hit the wall ever, because you always have enough fat and your body has learned how to fuel the brain with protein.
Check out this individual account of a doctor that put the keto low-carb diet to the test and you can see his aerobic capacity improved alot by lowing carbs:
http://waroninsulin.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
If your point about hunger is also true, then it doesn't explain why I get orders of magnitude hungrier after a run fueled by primarily glucose than I do after a run fueled by primarily fat.0 -
First of all, when you eat a low-carb diet, you effectively deplete your glucose stores. Your body is given no choice but to turn to your fat stores for energy. Burning these fat stores is more difficult for your body because the fat must first be converted into glucose before it can be burned. This process costs you an ATP molecule during glycolysis that burning carbs doesn't. So, It stands to reason that if your body is working hard converting, you are going to have a bit less energy. Fat oxidation also requires more oxygen than carbohydrate oxidation. I really do not understand how you think this is "largely untrue." You can poo poo the experts all you want, but this is a biological fact, and I would believe my prof who has a masters degree in human kinetics and a CSEP-CEP.
The reason you get hungry on a high-carb diet is because carbs are easier for your body to digest, not because of burning mainly glucose. Regardless of what you eat, your body burns the most readily available source first, i.e. carbs. Then, when your glucose stores are depleted, it switches to mainly burning fat. Lethargy comes from not having enough energy from your food, i.e. cutting your calories too low for your body to function.
For aerobic activity the cost of burning fat instead of glucose is insignificant once the body is adapted to it. When you burn primarily glucose, your body hits the wall when the time comes that glucose is depleted. By training yourself to burn fat most of the time, you won't hit the wall ever, because you always have enough fat and your body has learned how to fuel the brain with protein.
Check out this individual account of a doctor that put the keto low-carb diet to the test and you can see his aerobic capacity improved alot by lowing carbs:
http://waroninsulin.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance
If your point about hunger is also true, then it doesn't explain why I get orders of magnitude hungrier after a run fueled by primarily glucose than I do after a run fueled by primarily fat.
[/quote]
Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong?0 -
Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong?
Because that is what so many people do here as well.0 -
Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong? [
Cognitive dissonance.0 -
Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong? [
Cognitive dissonance.
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!
I think most of us who have come to the conclusion that a lower-carb diet works best for us have not come to that decision lightly. Some of us feel better, more energetic, think more clearly, have better memory, improved moods, find it easier to stay satiated, and lose weight easier with less carbs in our diet.
My favorite foods are cereal, breads (home-baked out of the oven, oh yeah!), meals based on pasta (oooooh, lasagna) and potatoes. Don't you think I would eat them regularly if I could?
In the past, I might have my protein with a big potato and a small bit of other vegetables or salad. Now I eat that protein with a big serving of non-starchy vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, whatever) and a salad. What is wrong with that? Please tell me what is so detrimental to eating this way?
Personally, I doubt you can.0 -
Nothing, except that fruits, whole grains, and other carbohydrate rich foods have vitamins and micronutrients you cannot get from any other source. Eliminating entire food groups from your diet prevents you from getting well-balanced nutrition.Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong? [
Cognitive dissonance.
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!
I think most of us who have come to the conclusion that a lower-carb diet works best for us have not come to that decision lightly. Some of us feel better, more energetic, think more clearly, have better memory, improved moods, find it easier to stay satiated, and lose weight easier with less carbs in our diet.
My favorite foods are cereal, breads (home-baked out of the oven, oh yeah!), meals based on pasta (oooooh, lasagna) and potatoes. Don't you think I would eat them regularly if I could?
In the past, I might have my protein with a big potato and a small bit of other vegetables or salad. Now I eat that protein with a big serving of non-starchy vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, whatever) and a salad. What is wrong with that? Please tell me what is so detrimental to eating this way?
Personally, I doubt you can.
I also tend to eat meat and veggies together for dinner, heavy on the veggies and usually without a starchy side; however, I incorporate fruits and other nutrient rich carbohydrates into the rest of my day.0 -
Please tell me what is so detrimental to eating this way?
Personally, I doubt you can.
Please show me where I (or Acj67) said it was detrimental. Personally, I doubt you can.
"Not detrimental" is not the same as superior.0 -
Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong? [
Cognitive dissonance.
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!
I think most of us who have come to the conclusion that a lower-carb diet works best for us have not come to that decision lightly. Some of us feel better, more energetic, think more clearly, have better memory, improved moods, find it easier to stay satiated, and lose weight easier with less carbs in our diet.
My favorite foods are cereal, breads (home-baked out of the oven, oh yeah!), meals based on pasta (oooooh, lasagna) and potatoes. Don't you think I would eat them regularly if I could?
In the past, I might have my protein with a big potato and a small bit of other vegetables or salad. Now I eat that protein with a big serving of non-starchy vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, whatever) and a salad. What is wrong with that? Please tell me what is so detrimental to eating this way?
Personally, I doubt you can.
I think I have figured out Acg and RonSwanson's agendas. Both of them seem to be attached to 'low carb' related threads. They know that there is a lot of bad science touted regarding low carb diets. I don't think either of them thinks low carb diets are bad, but they object to promoting them without evidence to back up the claims.
There's clearly a bias here, because there is constantly bad, scientifically unsound, unproven advice given on this forum every few seconds. If they aren't going to call these folks out for not backing their claims up with evidence, then I don't feel the need to back up every claim I make with evidence either.
If I make a claim and someone wants to dispute it with evidence, that's fine and I welcome it. If I can counter that evidence then I will.0 -
I think I have figured out Acg and RonSwanson's agendas. Both of them seem to be attached to 'low carb' related threads. They know that there is a lot of bad science touted regarding low carb diets. I don't think either of them thinks low carb diets are bad, but they object to promoting them without evidence to back up the claims.
There's clearly a bias here, because there is constantly bad, scientifically unsound, unproven advice given on this forum every few seconds. If they aren't going to call these folks out for not backing their claims up with evidence, then I don't feel the need to back up every claim I make with evidence either.
If I make a claim and someone wants to dispute it with evidence, that's fine and I welcome it. If I can counter that evidence then I will.
And clearly you haven't seen me dispel the broscience of you must eat breakfast, increased meal frequency has a metabolic advantage, eating after a certain time is bad or seen posts breaking down the wonder supp that is Shakeology0 -
I think I have figured out Acg and RonSwanson's agendas. Both of them seem to be attached to 'low carb' related threads. They know that there is a lot of bad science touted regarding low carb diets. I don't think either of them thinks low carb diets are bad, but they object to promoting them without evidence to back up the claims.
There's clearly a bias here, because there is constantly bad, scientifically unsound, unproven advice given on this forum every few seconds. If they aren't going to call these folks out for not backing their claims up with evidence, then I don't feel the need to back up every claim I make with evidence either.
If I make a claim and someone wants to dispute it with evidence, that's fine and I welcome it. If I can counter that evidence then I will.
And clearly you haven't seen me dispel the broscience of you must eat breakfast, increased meal frequency has a metabolic advantage, eating after a certain time is bad or seen posts breaking down the wonder supp that is Shakeology
All I know is I shake my head at a lot of the advice I see here, but I always know where to find you. That's fine that you care about low-carb topics. I care about them myself. But it gets tiring when every last one of them ends up being an argument over who can cite the most reliable studies.0 -
Nothing, except that fruits, whole grains, and other carbohydrate rich foods have vitamins and micronutrients you cannot get from any other source. Eliminating entire food groups from your diet prevents you from getting well-balanced nutrition.Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong? [
Cognitive dissonance.
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!
I think most of us who have come to the conclusion that a lower-carb diet works best for us have not come to that decision lightly. Some of us feel better, more energetic, think more clearly, have better memory, improved moods, find it easier to stay satiated, and lose weight easier with less carbs in our diet.
My favorite foods are cereal, breads (home-baked out of the oven, oh yeah!), meals based on pasta (oooooh, lasagna) and potatoes. Don't you think I would eat them regularly if I could?
In the past, I might have my protein with a big potato and a small bit of other vegetables or salad. Now I eat that protein with a big serving of non-starchy vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, whatever) and a salad. What is wrong with that? Please tell me what is so detrimental to eating this way?
Personally, I doubt you can.
I also tend to eat meat and veggies together for dinner, heavy on the veggies and usually without a starchy side; however, I incorporate fruits and other nutrient rich carbohydrates into the rest of my day.
Please tell me what these vitamins and micronutrients are that you can only get from eating fruits or whole-grains or other carbohydrate rich foods and from no other food source.
BTW, I did forget to mention that I also eat nuts and dairy (mainly cheese and yogurt, occasional cups of milk).
From my research, all fat and water soluble vitamins and other micronutrients are readily available in vegetables,meats, nuts, dairy and healthy fats.
Exactly what vitamins and micronutrients am I missing by limiting grains and fruit? Please be exact.0 -
Nothing, except that fruits, whole grains, and other carbohydrate rich foods have vitamins and micronutrients you cannot get from any other source. Eliminating entire food groups from your diet prevents you from getting well-balanced nutrition.Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong? [
Cognitive dissonance.
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!
I think most of us who have come to the conclusion that a lower-carb diet works best for us have not come to that decision lightly. Some of us feel better, more energetic, think more clearly, have better memory, improved moods, find it easier to stay satiated, and lose weight easier with less carbs in our diet.
My favorite foods are cereal, breads (home-baked out of the oven, oh yeah!), meals based on pasta (oooooh, lasagna) and potatoes. Don't you think I would eat them regularly if I could?
In the past, I might have my protein with a big potato and a small bit of other vegetables or salad. Now I eat that protein with a big serving of non-starchy vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, whatever) and a salad. What is wrong with that? Please tell me what is so detrimental to eating this way?
Personally, I doubt you can.
I also tend to eat meat and veggies together for dinner, heavy on the veggies and usually without a starchy side; however, I incorporate fruits and other nutrient rich carbohydrates into the rest of my day.
Please tell me what these vitamins and micronutrients are that you can only get from eating fruits or whole-grains or other carbohydrate rich foods and from no other food source.
BTW, I did forget to mention that I also eat nuts and dairy (mainly cheese and yogurt, occasional cups of milk).
From my research, all fat and water soluble vitamins and other micronutrients are readily available in vegetables,meats, nuts, dairy and healthy fats.
Exactly what vitamins and micronutrients am I missing by limiting grains and fruit? Please be exact.
Whatever these vitamins are, I actually feel better without them.0 -
Please tell me what is so detrimental to eating this way?
Personally, I doubt you can.
Please show me where I (or Acj67) said it was detrimental. Personally, I doubt you can.
"Not detrimental" is not the same as superior.
So it's superior for me to increase my carb intake so I can return to a life of feeling sluggish and lethargic to the point where I found exercise to be impossible, lack of general overall energy, needing more sleep, being forgetful and finding it difficult to concentrate, having mood swings and needing an anti-depressant medication, having aching joints (especially knees and ankles), headaches, lower HDL and higher LDL, and other negative impacts?
Yeah, sure, you betcha.0 -
What is meant by low carb? Is that low total carbs or low net carbs?0
-
I should have specified antioxidants and phytochemicals, but regardless...
Nothing, except that fruits, whole grains, and other carbohydrate rich foods have vitamins and micronutrients you cannot get from any other source. Eliminating entire food groups from your diet prevents you from getting well-balanced nutrition.Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong? [
Cognitive dissonance.
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!
I think most of us who have come to the conclusion that a lower-carb diet works best for us have not come to that decision lightly. Some of us feel better, more energetic, think more clearly, have better memory, improved moods, find it easier to stay satiated, and lose weight easier with less carbs in our diet.
My favorite foods are cereal, breads (home-baked out of the oven, oh yeah!), meals based on pasta (oooooh, lasagna) and potatoes. Don't you think I would eat them regularly if I could?
In the past, I might have my protein with a big potato and a small bit of other vegetables or salad. Now I eat that protein with a big serving of non-starchy vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, whatever) and a salad. What is wrong with that? Please tell me what is so detrimental to eating this way?
Personally, I doubt you can.
I also tend to eat meat and veggies together for dinner, heavy on the veggies and usually without a starchy side; however, I incorporate fruits and other nutrient rich carbohydrates into the rest of my day.
Please tell me what these vitamins and micronutrients are that you can only get from eating fruits or whole-grains or other carbohydrate rich foods and from no other food source.
BTW, I did forget to mention that I also eat nuts and dairy (mainly cheese and yogurt, occasional cups of milk).
From my research, all fat and water soluble vitamins and other micronutrients are readily available in vegetables,meats, nuts, dairy and healthy fats.
Exactly what vitamins and micronutrients am I missing by limiting grains and fruit? Please be exact.
Whatever these vitamins are, I actually feel better without them.
As someone who has seen my husband go through cancer and the awful effects of chemotherapy, I am going to say that the antioxidants only available in fruits and veggies, not to mention the easily absorbed nutrients (while it is true that nuts and dairy and meat have many of the main essential nutrients, many are not as easily absorbed as from plant sources), are essential to a healthy lifestyle.
Berries, tomatoes, and citrus fruit have proven cancer fighting properties (although essentially all fruits have health benefits).
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/HerbsVitaminsandMinerals/phytochemicals
Fiber is another important thing to consider - you can get it from beans and veggies, but whole grains are a great source of this as well, especially in providing both soluble and insoluble fiber.0 -
I should have specified antioxidants and phytochemicals, but regardless...
Nothing, except that fruits, whole grains, and other carbohydrate rich foods have vitamins and micronutrients you cannot get from any other source. Eliminating entire food groups from your diet prevents you from getting well-balanced nutrition.Why keep using anecdotal and N=1 examples as proof as why something is wrong? [
Cognitive dissonance.
Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!
I think most of us who have come to the conclusion that a lower-carb diet works best for us have not come to that decision lightly. Some of us feel better, more energetic, think more clearly, have better memory, improved moods, find it easier to stay satiated, and lose weight easier with less carbs in our diet.
My favorite foods are cereal, breads (home-baked out of the oven, oh yeah!), meals based on pasta (oooooh, lasagna) and potatoes. Don't you think I would eat them regularly if I could?
In the past, I might have my protein with a big potato and a small bit of other vegetables or salad. Now I eat that protein with a big serving of non-starchy vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, whatever) and a salad. What is wrong with that? Please tell me what is so detrimental to eating this way?
Personally, I doubt you can.
I also tend to eat meat and veggies together for dinner, heavy on the veggies and usually without a starchy side; however, I incorporate fruits and other nutrient rich carbohydrates into the rest of my day.
Please tell me what these vitamins and micronutrients are that you can only get from eating fruits or whole-grains or other carbohydrate rich foods and from no other food source.
BTW, I did forget to mention that I also eat nuts and dairy (mainly cheese and yogurt, occasional cups of milk).
From my research, all fat and water soluble vitamins and other micronutrients are readily available in vegetables,meats, nuts, dairy and healthy fats.
Exactly what vitamins and micronutrients am I missing by limiting grains and fruit? Please be exact.
Whatever these vitamins are, I actually feel better without them.
As someone who has seen my husband go through cancer and the awful effects of chemotherapy, I am going to say that the antioxidants only available in fruits and veggies, not to mention the easily absorbed nutrients (while it is true that nuts and dairy and meat have many of the main essential nutrients, many are not as easily absorbed as from plant sources), are essential to a healthy lifestyle.
Berries, tomatoes, and citrus fruit have proven cancer fighting properties (although essentially all fruits have health benefits).
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/HerbsVitaminsandMinerals/phytochemicals
Fiber is another important thing to consider - you can get it from beans and veggies, but whole grains are a great source of this as well, especially in providing both soluble and insoluble fiber.
If someone is doing low-carb the way Atkins or any of the other major plans recommend, they are probably eat more vegetables than they have ever eaten in their lives. I know I am. What did you miss about what I original said in that my diet is focused on vegetables, proteins, healthy fats, with some nuts and dairy? Vegetables are first for a reason. So I'm getting plenty of phytochemicals and antioxidants as well.
I eat tomatoes. I'll admit that I personally don't eat berries as often as I should per Atkins recommendation but that is something on the list of the things I plan to work on improving and my own fault and not that of a low-carb eating plan. I know that many people who do low-carb eat them. In fact, Atkins and, I believe, most other low-carb plans really do push the eating of berries as the preferred of all the fruits. So, again, low-carb promotes eating berries and, therefore, if someone is following the plan correctly they are getting the benefits of berries.
If you're talking about fiber purely for reasons of thorough elimination, I know I get more than enough fiber from my vegetables and my very limited intake of whole-grains. I am more regular now than I was when I was eating more grains. In fact, one of my symptoms from eating too many grains is getting bloated and constipated.0 -
What is meant by low carb? Is that low total carbs or low net carbs?
Who are you asking?
For me, low carb is 80-100 per day. I count total, not net.0 -
I personally think carbs have a bigger effect on your weight, but I personally count calories because when you are working out it doesn't tell you how many carbs you lost and I like to keep track of my intake and what I am burning off.0
-
Not sure if other posters mentioned it but it all depents on your metabolic profile. There are quiet a few tests online so you can check them out and adjust your diet accordingly. But the core of it all is calories in vs. calories out, plain and simple. 0
-
Eating healthy.
Counting your calories. Vegetables, fruits, Legumes, Water, Tofu, fish, meats, fats, white stuff....in that order. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions