3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community  

Go Back   3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community > Diet Central > Carb Counters

Why going low carb is 'essential' for weight loss

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-14-2014, 11:02 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

I am really listening to everyone. I like this article about not one diet for all and to listen to your body. And both vegan and Paleo (I am Paleoish, I eat cheese) have whole unprocessed foods in common which is big.

And one of my goals in 2014 was to eat less meat.

http://www.fourriversclinic.com/2013...egan-vs-paleo/
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2014, 11:42 PM   #17
it's always something
 
Suzanne 3FC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,150

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post
Yep agree, everyone is different. It sounds like I have more dairy and meat and fat than Suzanne. But it also sounds like Suzanne probably has less than 300 grams carbs a day. That is hard to reach grain free.
True, I don't eat 300 grams of carbs per day, but I'm also not on a 2000 calorie diet The recommendations are for a percentage, not a set number, and it's 45-65% carbs which should be adjusted per age, activity level, etc, and is based on the needs of a healthy adult who is not obese and does not have obesity related health issues. 300 carbs would be about 60% of a 2000 calorie diet and would probably suit a healthy and active adult male. Which I'm not . Someone on a 1500 calorie weight loss diet would need about 200 grams carbs, if you even count carbs, which should be lots of colorful fruits and veggies IMO.

I use the USDA Super Tracker to check the nutrient content of my meals since it lets me know if I reach the RDA for about 35 various vitamins, minerals, etc. I eat a completely natural diet without supplements. I just checked and my report says I eat 60% carbs. I never looked before because my magic numbers were 100% RDA of all of the vitamins and minerals in my foods. To me, that's much more important that assigning a number to carbs.

I eat about 6 cups of fruit and probably about 1.5 to 2 pounds of vegetables daily (rough guess). Organic oats every morning. Seafood at night, tofu and lentils in the day. I snack on kimchi and crispy seaweed. There's a liberal amount of sesame oil in my homemade salad dressing, but other than that I rarely add any fats to my diet. I occasionally add a smidgen of sugar or honey to recipes if they require it, but I'm careful how much I use and I never use anything artificial. There's sugar in my mirin, but I have no problem with that. I love exploring Korean and Japanese foods, although I leave out the rice. There's rice flour in my Korean red pepper paste, but I have no problem with that. The mere presence of starch or sugar has no effect on my weight, I just don't feel that it's calories well spent since it doesn't contain anything beneficial. Everything I eat is delicious and I'm never hungry.

With my history of cancer and a heart condition, I choose the foods that are most likely to help me live a long and healthy life. That's my only goal, and I believe that counting and limiting "carbs" would interfere with that goal. I don't see food in those terms, I try to look at the bigger picture. I'm not 100% perfectly on plan all the time, but I choose my indiscretions carefully. Life is for living
__________________
...
Suzanne 3FC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 08:13 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

I don't count carbs or calories, I haven't had to. If I am eating whole unprocessed foods I don't have to. By all means should do what your body/mind needs works best on.

Fats seem to agree with me, for instance. Keep my body strong and losing weight. At the end of the day, Paleo, Vegan, something in between have a heck of a lot more in common with one another than the SAD does to either.

http://www.nomeatathlete.com/vegans-and-paleos/
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 09:30 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

My uncle, only 22 years older than me, has developed diabetes and dementia. He eat a lot of grains throughout his life and had a big belly just like me. Now I'll never know all the factors that contributed. But I don't, personally, want to mess with grains.

I've also heard, depending upon the source of fat, they can be very helpful for brain health. I've also heard on Pritikan many people get depression. But just like not all low carb is Atkins, I am sure not all low fat is Pritikan.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 10:13 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

Pretty thought provoking article on fats. Everyone have a nice Presidents Day weekend.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ated-fat1.aspx
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 10:23 AM   #21
it's always something
 
Suzanne 3FC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,150

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post
I've also heard, depending upon the source of fat, they can be very helpful for brain health. I've also heard on Pritikan many people get depression. But just like not all low carb is Atkins, I am sure not all low fat is Pritikan.
Brain health is something I also worry about. A recent study of over 6000 women over the age of 65 showed that increased saturated fats caused faster cognitive decline. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22605573 There may be some benefits to including some saturated fats, but when I weigh the pros and cons and consider my personal health goals, I made the decision to exclude them. I'm just not comfortable with it. Btw, most of the sat fats eaten by the women in the study came from red meat and butter.

Regarding depression, there is a clear link between low carb diets and clinical depression. Several studies have shown that low carb can even be dangerous for many people with clinical depression. This may not occur to every low-carber, of course, but it happens frequently in those who are already prone to serotonin related depression. This happens because of the way the lack of carbs affects the production of serotonin in the brain. This can also result in mood swings, which is more common that depression in those that are affected by lack of carbs in this way. Many people get 'snippy' when they reduce carbs. Dr. Judith Wurtman published several studies about the connection between carbs and moods. That's why I mentioned in an earlier post that low-carb was not always a good idea for everyone.
Suzanne 3FC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 01:38 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

One of the big problems in all of this are confounding factors. They really truly are confounding.

So for instance the China Study Forks over Knives uses thought to say hey its cholesterol or meat consumption or something for higher heart disease. But it used rural populations for one group and urban populations for another. So it could have been sedentariness, urban pollution, urban stress or just about anything accounting for what they found.

There are many studies that show heart disease has nothing to do with fat....except that cutting it out has been an awful idea for heart disease. Also with depression, many studies and people reporting depression on high carb diets.

So one of the things I try and do is look at the largest study at all, overall trends in America. So many confounding factors here that I am the first to admit this is not 'proof' of any sort.

But heart disease was much less in say 1920. What were people eating here? Butter and lard. What were they not eating? Margarine, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil. So all other things being equal if I am concerned about my heart health, I am going to go with butter and in my case olive oil, flax seed oil for dressings, coconut oil, and I am looking into macadamia oil.

Fats from ruminants, especially if grass fed and organic seem to me to have been very healthy for human hearts for millennia after millennia.

This again is not causation. But I personally feel pretty solid about what people like Mary Enig, and far from just her, are saying about fats. Especially saturated fats. And knowing what I do now I would not touch the vegetable oils (corn, soybean, canola) and margarine as much as I can. Making eating out tougher, but that is probably a good thing.

Taking a break on posting for awhile. I have just been posting too much. I appreciate the points..I'll be back in a week or so. Have a good one everyone.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 10:46 PM   #23
it's always something
 
Suzanne 3FC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,150

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post
But heart disease was much less in say 1920. What were people eating here? Butter and lard. What were they not eating? Margarine, corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil. So all other things being equal if I am concerned about my heart health, I am going to go with butter and in my case olive oil, flax seed oil for dressings, coconut oil, and I am looking into macadamia oil.
Ah, but in 1920, the average life expectancy was just 54 years. In 1900 it was just 46. Life expectancy has gradually increased over the decades and was 79 as of 1998. I would guess that there wasn't enough medical technology in 1920 to determine how many people had heart disease. Either you died of a heart attack or something else, but no one was getting echocardiograms Technology, along with accuracy, has gradually increased over the decades and allows a better view of our health now than what was once possible. We're also living longer, allowing us more time to build up the effects of our bad personal choices as well as environmental damage.

I'm with you on macadamia nut oil. It's the only type of oil that I have recommended to my own family. I think I mentioned that I use sesame oil in my salad dressing, which is there for flavor. If I were to need to cook in oil, I would use macadamia nut oil and I have some in my cabinet. Macadamia nut oil, IMO, is the best oil simply because of the ratio of Omega 6 to 3 fatty acids.
Suzanne 3FC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 10:59 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

Good points on longevity, that's why I personally am not eating grains: they were really building up chronic bad health for me. Maybe no one else.

We are going to have to disagree about fats. I think we have gone drastically wrong demonizing saturated fat. Moderation is still important but I will take butter over margarine or the soy, corn, etc oils any day.

The other difficulty is we aren't testing for particle size with LDL. We also don't, I believe, need to go back to the 1920s. I find the trend of worse heart health ever since it became 'official' saturated fats were bad. Now you can say well the SAD is the worse, and whole foods more saturated fats is better, and whole foods less saturated fat is best. And I would say 2 and 3 are better than 1 for sure. And I am never eating sticks of butter, but I have a much more positive view of saturated fats than you do.


Super high burn point on macadamia oil also.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 02-15-2014 at 11:31 PM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 03:28 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
freelancemomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,040

S/C/G: 195/145/145

Height: 5'11"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzanne 3FC View Post
300 carbs would be about 60% of a 2000 calorie diet and would probably suit a healthy and active adult male.
I'm a healthy, moderately active 57-year-old female and that's exactly what I eat to maintain a 50-pound weight loss: 2,000 cals, 300 g carbs.

F.
__________________
freelancemomma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 08:29 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

That is fantastic it works for you. Great job losing and maintaining. For a lot of Americans eating 300 grams of carbs is resulting in them getting bigger and bigger and sicker and sicker.

My personal experience is that 300 grams of carbs a day was literally killing me. And keeping me completely famished and hungry all the time even though I was eating probably 1.5 to 2 times the calories I do now, and I feel no hunger. It was massively contributing to belly fat. Lowering carbs my belly has melted away and I am never hungry.

But source of carbs is key. I eat whole foods now and more veggies than I did before. People doing 'low carb' right probably eat a lot more veggies than the average American.

My blood work back in October was my best ever. I was a little low on HDL but I am sure that is through the roof now as I have incorporated many more saturated fats since then. I had to learn a lot beyond the conventional wisdom. I like almost everyone grew up with saturated fats are bad. The story behind how that became the story is mind blowing. I haven't read it, but a new book called Death By Food Pyramid is getting very good reviews.

BTW my wife just had her first blood work while on the same diet as me. It was AWESOME. A key marker for heart health is triglycerides to HDL level. She has a 78 triglycerides and a 60 HDL. Any ratio 2 and under is excellent. Hers is closer to 1 to 1.

By far her healthiest numbers ever. She is losing weight as well.

One of the key studies in all of this is that there is ZERO documented studies that saturated fat is bad for you.

And a 2010 study of 348,000 people showed no correlation between saturated fat and heart disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

Since the 1970s at least America in general has replaced fats with carbs. And we replaced good saturated fats, grass fed butter, grass fed lard, coconut oil that are awesome for health with vegetable oils with high omega 6 ratios that have to be produced in industrial processes. Butter and lard are natural, at least if the animals are grass fed like they evolved to be fed, and coconut oil takes almost no processing to get out.

But don't take my word for it. If anyone reading this is using any kind of vegetable oil, and certainly margarine, it might be worthwhile to research them.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 02-26-2014 at 08:46 PM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Posts by members, moderators and admins are not considered medical advice
and no guarantee is made against accuracy.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Rules of Weight Lifting - Anyone doing it now? Wildflower Weight and Resistance Training 460 01-29-2013 10:29 AM
I have been plateaud for over a month - looking for some advice please... Pastrey LA Weight Loss 31 08-27-2007 03:58 PM
Does low carb work? manicgurl Carb Counters 26 08-19-2005 04:29 PM
Low Carb Foods - deja vu??? MrsJim Does it Work? 23 03-04-2004 02:09 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:47 PM.






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2