Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Low-Carb Diets]: Now with awesome recipes on the first page!

13468928

Posts

  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010

    no comment on the matter just wanted to paste it here, i am reading it now

    Sugar as a cause of obesity, high in calories - nutritionally empty, is something I think we can all get behind, nebulously demonising all carbs is less of a go getter for me.

    Alistair Hutton on
    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • JuliusJulius regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Yeah this is why they don't get fat. However, if you want to lose weight going low-carb is the better way.

    One of my larger problems with low-carb diets is that they require a considerable sacrifice to maintain, which makes them pretty hard for a lot of people. If you don't like sugar or starches too much, maybe it's simple. But if you do, you pretty much enter a diet in which you have to give up entire classes of food. You basically can't have sweets. You have to be very careful when you eat out. You're basically weaning your body off of significant carb intake, and training your body to not know how to really respond to carbs well.

    A traditional diet that limits sugar and fat is fairly easy to pull off. Don't eat stuff with lots of sugar in it, limit sweets, consume lean meat, and so on. Most fatty or sugar-laden things have reasonable substitutes. Don't want fatty chips? Eat baked chips, or some other non-fried snack food. Get low-fat ice cream, or frozen yogurt. Cut the fat off your steak. You can be healthy and eat pretty much the same sort of thing you already like.

    But a low carb diet? Hope you don't like pasta. Or bread. Or rice. Or potatoes. Or any sort of dessert. Yes, you can ostensibly eat all the meat and cheese you like, but that gets boring. It's harder to stay good when you have to swear off entire classes of food.

    You can still eat those things. If you cut out sugary stuff you've basically already cut out a significant portion of carbs. Seriously, cutting out sugar and fast food is enough for a lot of people.

    But all diets are hard to stick to. Cutting the fat of your steak is both pointless and hard because FAT IS DELICIOUS!

    Julius on
  • CangoFettCangoFett regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    My sister did atkins, and said that on it you cant eat fruit.


    I work in a produce section. I constantly eat fruit.


    Fruit is darn delicious.

    And I get employee discounts.

    1 pint of blue berries for 2 dollars

    THAT IS CRAZY


    YOU CAN PRY MY BLUEBERRIES AND APPLES FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS DR ATKINS

    CangoFett on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    I think one or two fruits a week is fine. You don't need any more than that.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • CangoFettCangoFett regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I think one or two fruits an hour is fine. You don't need any more than that.

    Oh okay. Im on board then.

    CangoFett on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I think one or two fruits a week is fine. You don't need any more than that.

    Wait, what?

    So like...two apples a week?

    Arch on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    CangoFett wrote: »
    1 pint of blue berries for 2 dollars

    Wait, seriously?

    Fuck you.

    They charge 10 times that where I am.

    Schrodinger on
  • PrecursorPrecursor regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    snip

    no comment on the matter just wanted to paste it here, i am reading it now
    Thanks for the posts, that's really interesting.

    Precursor on
    Quashdom.png
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    I think one or two fruits a week is fine. You don't need any more than that.

    Wait, what?

    So like...two apples a week?

    That's about how much I eat, yeah. Or 1 banana.

    For fruits that have less sugar, such as berries, you can consume more than that. I sometimes put blueberries in my protein shakes.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    I think one or two fruits a week is fine. You don't need any more than that.

    Wait, what?

    So like...two apples a week?

    That's about how much I eat, yeah. Or 1 banana.

    For fruits that have less sugar, such as berries, you can consume more than that. I sometimes put blueberries in my protein shakes.

    One banana...a week?

    So if I eat a banana every morning that is...bad?

    I uh...really am having a hard time accepting this.

    Arch on
  • geckahngeckahn regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    In my opinion, eat as much fruit as you want.

    Also carbs from sweet potatoes and yams.

    unless you're actively trying to lose weight.

    geckahn on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    I don't know how bad it will be for you. It's just that most of it is empty calories because it's full of sugar. An average sized banana has 28g sugar in it, which is almost as much as a can of soda. Of course, it's fructose as opposed to sucrose or HFCS, so it's a little different, but it's still bad.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • geckahngeckahn regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    well I'd certainly encourage not eating high sugar fruits (like banana) and stick more to berries and apples etc.

    geckahn on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I don't know how bad it will be for you. It's just that most of it is empty calories because it's full of sugar. An average sized banana has 28g sugar in it, which is almost as much as a can of soda. Of course, it's fructose as opposed to sucrose or HFCS, so it's a little different, but it's still bad.

    :?

    Bananas are now equal to soda, good to know.

    Arch on
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    best fruits for you are generally berries

    bananas are not quite as good

    but eat berries all the fuckin time

    Shazkar Shadowstorm on
    poo
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    I didn't say that. You need to stop strawmanning everything I say, it's seriously getting annoying.
    Of course, it's fructose as opposed to sucrose or HFCS, so it's a little different, but it's still bad.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • geckahngeckahn regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    best fruits for you are generally berries

    bananas are not quite as good

    but eat berries all the fuckin time

    they are also super delicious.

    geckahn on
  • Shazkar ShadowstormShazkar Shadowstorm regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    hooray for summer summer = berries

    Shazkar Shadowstorm on
    poo
  • durandal4532durandal4532 regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    I don't know how bad it will be for you. It's just that most of it is empty calories because it's full of sugar. An average sized banana has 28g sugar in it, which is almost as much as a can of soda. Of course, it's fructose as opposed to sucrose or HFCS, so it's a little different, but it's still bad.

    :?

    Bananas are now equal to soda, good to know.

    But remember, buttered bacon is equal to an apple. No, better than!



    Also, I agree with ElJeffe. "Losing weight" is significantly less useful than simply eating the amount necessary to keep yourself at a weight you're comfortable with. Eventually, you will be at that weight. Exercise to speed that along. But dropping to 100 calories a day in an effort to jump-start isn't something that seems sensible.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    I don't know how bad it will be for you. It's just that most of it is empty calories because it's full of sugar. An average sized banana has 28g sugar in it, which is almost as much as a can of soda. Of course, it's fructose as opposed to sucrose or HFCS, so it's a little different, but it's still bad.

    :?

    Bananas are now equal to soda, good to know.

    But remember, buttered bacon is equal to an apple. No, better than!

    What? There is nothing wrong with buttered bacon, except maybe the fact that you don't actually need the butter since bacon cooks nicely in its own fat.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • geckahngeckahn regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Bananas are now equal to soda, good to know.

    But remember, buttered bacon is equal to an apple. No, better than!

    A strawman on top of a strawman.

    geckahn on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Protein, serious question time.

    You claim that the calorie in< calorie out= weight loss formula is faulty.

    Your argument stems from the fact that both are mutable, and given a constant change in the calorie intake your body would naturally adjust to this change and thus reach a stasis and not lose weight.

    My response was to point out that yes you are correct, in a closed system where the calories out (and thus, energy use) is mediated solely by the body's natural homeostatic systems.

    How does your argument hold up in the event that the individual in question is actually doing enough work to burn more calories than they are consuming?

    Arch on
  • MblackwellMblackwell regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    What's wrong with bacon? I eat bacon all the time. I've lost weight. Yippee skippee spouting things that sound absurd based on current public dietary policy recommendations.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    CangoFett wrote: »
    1 pint of blue berries for 2 dollars

    Wait, seriously?

    Fuck you.

    They charge 10 times that where I am.

    Oh man, that's one thing I fucking loved about China. $7 got you enough fruit to have a fruit party.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • durandal4532durandal4532 regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Protein, serious question time.

    You claim that the calorie in< calorie out= weight loss formula is faulty.

    Your argument stems from the fact that both are mutable, and given a constant change in the calorie intake your body would naturally adjust to this change and thus reach a stasis and not lose weight.

    My response was to point out that yes you are correct, in a closed system where the calories out (and thus, energy use) is mediated solely by the body's natural homeostatic systems.

    How does your argument hold up in the event that the individual in question is actually doing enough work to burn more calories than they are consuming?
    Yeah I really don't understand that. It seems to basically take the idea that a body attempts to achieve homeostasis and then assume that yes, it always will.

    Edit: Sodium is also kind of a good general rule I think because the easiest way to keep it low is to cook your own stuff, and not eat snack foods/convenience foods.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • VisionOfClarityVisionOfClarity regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    In the end, no matter what I eat there is one thing that kills me every time, sodium. I base my decisions almost universally on sodium content now because it makes a huge difference for me, more than carbs and more than fat or anything else.

    VisionOfClarity on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Protein, serious question time.

    You claim that the calorie in< calorie out= weight loss formula is faulty.

    Your argument stems from the fact that both are mutable, and given a constant change in the calorie intake your body would naturally adjust to this change and thus reach a stasis and not lose weight.

    My response was to point out that yes you are correct, in a closed system where the calories out (and thus, energy use) is mediated solely by the body's natural homeostatic systems.

    How does your argument hold up in the event that the individual in question is actually doing enough work to burn more calories than they are consuming?

    I can only speak with regards to weightlifting, as that's the area I have experience in. Maybe it applies to other things too.

    Taubes' argument with regards to exercise, which has some merit but I don't really agree with, is thatthat exercise isn't actually that effective for weight loss because it makes people hungry and they consume more calories as a result to make up for the ones they burned. I think this is correct to a certain extent. We all know that physical activity makes us hungry. If you go for a run or a bike ride, afterwards you will want to eat and drink to replenish the stuff your body used up. If a friend invites you for dinner and says there will be shitloads of food so you better bring your appetite with you, then you'll most likely workout that day in order to be as hungry as possible before going to their place.

    The reason I disagree with his overall condemnation (or at least discouragement) of exercise however is that exercise (cardio somewhat, but weightlifting especially) has been shown to have other health benefits, so in the end, if you look at the net result, I think it's definitely positive, i.e. you should exercise.

    Now, with regards to the specific question you asked, what if the individual is actually doing enough work to burn more calories than they are consuming? Well, like I said, they will be hungry afterward. But they can certainly resist eating, which is what a lot of people do. There are two problems with that however. The first is that they will be feeling extremely tired and miserable for several hours, until they actually eat something. The second is that, your muscles are in a catabolic state right after an exercise, and the only way to stop that is to consume easily-digestable proteins and *some* carbs (the amount and type necessary depends on several factors which I won't get into here). If you don't do that, then you won't gain any muscles, and a lot of the long-term health benefits of exercise will be nullified.

    To summarize, yes it is possible to do enough work in order to facilitate weight loss, but it is very difficult to avoid overcompensating for the work done without eating and at the same time eat enough to make sure you are gaining some muscle.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Where, in this argument, is the place for the fact that in the absence of incoming food energy, the body will break down the fats stored in adipose tissue for energy?

    That is, say (for example and using easily manageable numbers) I exercise to a degree that I have done 3kcal worth of work. I then consume 2kcal worth of food. Is not the physiological response to this the breakdown of fats stored in adipose tissue to make up the extra 1kcal?

    Thus leading to a reduction in adipose tissue, stored fats, and a net weight loss?

    Arch on
  • Eggplant WizardEggplant Wizard regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Where, in this argument, is the place for the fact that in the absence of incoming food energy, the body will break down the fats stored in adipose tissue for energy?

    That is, say (for example and using easily manageable numbers) I exercise to a degree that I have done 3kcal worth of work. I then consume 2kcal worth of food. Is not the physiological response to this the breakdown of fats stored in adipose tissue to make up the extra 1kcal?

    Thus leading to a reduction in adipose tissue, stored fats, and a net weight loss?

    I believe that this is self-evident, which is perhaps why Protein didn't address it directly. The main problem with this approach is that it ignores human psychology. Running a calorie deficit is not fun, and most people have trouble sticking with it.

    Eggplant Wizard on
    Hello
  • lazegamerlazegamer regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Where, in this argument, is the place for the fact that in the absence of incoming food energy, the body will break down the fats stored in adipose tissue for energy?

    That is, say (for example and using easily manageable numbers) I exercise to a degree that I have done 3kcal worth of work. I then consume 2kcal worth of food. Is not the physiological response to this the breakdown of fats stored in adipose tissue to make up the extra 1kcal?

    Thus leading to a reduction in adipose tissue, stored fats, and a net weight loss?

    I would like to see this addressed further. The general thrust of the argument for a low carbohydrate diet is that you shouldn't consider caloric intake versus expected caloric use because the metabolism will rise in order to meet the influx of calories. At some point, there needs to be a motivation for the body to break down existing fat stores, which means that you need to be using more calories then you're bringing in. If you're eating a high calorie diet with a low ratio of carbohydrates, why would the body need to break down fat?

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Eggplant WizardEggplant Wizard regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Where, in this argument, is the place for the fact that in the absence of incoming food energy, the body will break down the fats stored in adipose tissue for energy?

    That is, say (for example and using easily manageable numbers) I exercise to a degree that I have done 3kcal worth of work. I then consume 2kcal worth of food. Is not the physiological response to this the breakdown of fats stored in adipose tissue to make up the extra 1kcal?

    Thus leading to a reduction in adipose tissue, stored fats, and a net weight loss?

    I would like to see this addressed further. The general thrust of the argument for a low carbohydrate diet is that you shouldn't consider caloric intake versus expected caloric use because the metabolism will rise in order to meet the influx of calories. At some point, there needs to be a motivation for the body to break down existing fat stores, which means that you need to be using more calories then you're bringing in. If you're eating a high calorie diet with a low ratio of carbohydrates, why would the body need to break down fat?

    That's a separate question, but also an interesting one. It's the one thing that doesn't make sense to me about low-carb diets. I'm on board with the idea of no carbs = no insulin = no weight gain, but it isn't obvious to me how this actually makes a person lose body fat, and I don't think it's been addressed here.

    Eggplant Wizard on
    Hello
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Where, in this argument, is the place for the fact that in the absence of incoming food energy, the body will break down the fats stored in adipose tissue for energy?

    That is, say (for example and using easily manageable numbers) I exercise to a degree that I have done 3kcal worth of work. I then consume 2kcal worth of food. Is not the physiological response to this the breakdown of fats stored in adipose tissue to make up the extra 1kcal?

    Thus leading to a reduction in adipose tissue, stored fats, and a net weight loss?

    I would like to see this addressed further. The general thrust of the argument for a low carbohydrate diet is that you shouldn't consider caloric intake versus expected caloric use because the metabolism will rise in order to meet the influx of calories. At some point, there needs to be a motivation for the body to break down existing fat stores, which means that you need to be using more calories then you're bringing in. If you're eating a high calorie diet with a low ratio of carbohydrates, why would the body need to break down fat?

    That's a separate question, but also an interesting one. It's the one thing that doesn't make sense to me about low-carb diets. I'm on board with the idea of no carbs = no insulin = no weight gain, but it isn't obvious to me how this actually makes a person lose body fat, and I don't think it's been addressed here.

    That is REALLY what I am getting at Eggplant.

    Arch on
  • Protein ShakesProtein Shakes __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Where, in this argument, is the place for the fact that in the absence of incoming food energy, the body will break down the fats stored in adipose tissue for energy?

    That is, say (for example and using easily manageable numbers) I exercise to a degree that I have done 3kcal worth of work. I then consume 2kcal worth of food. Is not the physiological response to this the breakdown of fats stored in adipose tissue to make up the extra 1kcal?

    Thus leading to a reduction in adipose tissue, stored fats, and a net weight loss?

    Your scenario is quite unrealistic so my explanation may be equally confusing.

    If it is high intensity exercise you will probably pass out during it because your body won't be converting fat to energy fast enough (most people's fat>energy conversion mechanisms are very inefficient due to not using it very much). If it is low intensity exercise, and your stomach has been empty for several hours before starting the exercise, then your body will slowly start converting the fat in your body to energy using glucagon (opposite of insulin) and also start breaking down muscle tissue for glucose. And during the entire thing you will feel like absolute shit, and will probably not stick to it.

    If you do in fact manage to finish the exercise without passing out or even becoming comatose, then you will in fact lose weight equal to 1kcal calories (about 0.3lbs fat, but more likely a combination of fat and muscle).

    Again though, things are never that simple. There are a large number of factors that go into determining when your body will lose weight and when it will try not to, and what kinds of tissues will be broken down to provide immediate energy. In addition, it will not be sustainable in the long term, because if the body detects that it is doing much more work on a regular basis than the amount of incoming energy, it will respond by breaking down muscle tissue in an effort to downregulate the metabolism. This is called starvation mode. You will rapidly lose muscle and become what is commonly referred to as "skinny fat".

    This is why the calories in minus calories out equals weight loss is oversimplistic to the point of uselessness. It gives an alternate framework for thinking about the issue, but you can't actually plan based on it because the body is too complex for that, and you can never tell how much you are burning.

    To bring up a relevant point, I think the emphasis on weight is very misguided. When people say they want to lose weight, they almost always mean that they want to lose fat. Losing muscle tissue is very much undesired.
    I believe that this is self-evident, which is perhaps why Protein didn't address it directly. The main problem with this approach is that it ignores human psychology. Running a calorie deficit is not fun, and most people have trouble sticking with it.

    Yes. What will most likely happen if you try to workout on an empty stomach, especially when doing huge amounts of work in the range of thousands of calories, is that you will feel dizzy and possibly even pass out.
    lazegamer wrote: »
    I would like to see this addressed further. The general thrust of the argument for a low carbohydrate diet is that you shouldn't consider caloric intake versus expected caloric use because the metabolism will rise in order to meet the influx of calories. At some point, there needs to be a motivation for the body to break down existing fat stores, which means that you need to be using more calories then you're bringing in. If you're eating a high calorie diet with a low ratio of carbohydrates, why would the body need to break down fat?

    That's a separate question, but also an interesting one. It's the one thing that doesn't make sense to me about low-carb diets. I'm on board with the idea of no carbs = no insulin = no weight gain, but it isn't obvious to me how this actually makes a person lose body fat, and I don't think it's been addressed here.

    In the absence of carbohydrates, the body turns to fat for energy. Where this fat comes from, it doesn't really care. It can come from diet. If not enough comes from diet, then the body secretes a hormone called glucagon to signal the fat cells to release their fat into the blood so that it can be converted into ketones. These ketones are then used by your other cells for energy. The result is a reduction in body fat.

    If more fat comes from the diet than the body can use, it will upregulate the metabolism to burn some of the excess (the individual might have a *slightly* increased body temperature and might feel hyper), and store the rest in fat tissue (because likely, such a diet will also contain protein, which also causes *some* insulin to be secreted, although not nearly as much as carbs do).

    Overall though, it is MUCH harder to gain weight on a low-carb diet, and MUCH easier to lose it.

    Protein Shakes on
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Well, if my mom met the following criteria... I'd be in favor if waterboarding her.
  • geckahngeckahn regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Where, in this argument, is the place for the fact that in the absence of incoming food energy, the body will break down the fats stored in adipose tissue for energy?

    That is, say (for example and using easily manageable numbers) I exercise to a degree that I have done 3kcal worth of work. I then consume 2kcal worth of food. Is not the physiological response to this the breakdown of fats stored in adipose tissue to make up the extra 1kcal?

    Thus leading to a reduction in adipose tissue, stored fats, and a net weight loss?

    I would like to see this addressed further. The general thrust of the argument for a low carbohydrate diet is that you shouldn't consider caloric intake versus expected caloric use because the metabolism will rise in order to meet the influx of calories. At some point, there needs to be a motivation for the body to break down existing fat stores, which means that you need to be using more calories then you're bringing in. If you're eating a high calorie diet with a low ratio of carbohydrates, why would the body need to break down fat?

    That's a separate question, but also an interesting one. It's the one thing that doesn't make sense to me about low-carb diets. I'm on board with the idea of no carbs = no insulin = no weight gain, but it isn't obvious to me how this actually makes a person lose body fat, and I don't think it's been addressed here.

    That is REALLY what I am getting at Eggplant.

    Insulin both causes fat cells to move into adipose tissue (what you're on board with) and prevents fat from leaving adipose tissue (what you're not getting). So if I was to put someone on a low calorie diet that still spiked insulin, it could (depending on that persons insulin sensitivity) lead to fat being trapped in the adipose tissue (because it cant get out as a result of raised insulin) while the rest of your body (muscles and organs) suffers from malnourishment, which leads to increased hunger and decreased metabolism. This is the typical response to a food limiting diet.

    geckahn on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe mod Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited May 2010
    Eljeffe, you realize low-carb diets are more difficult to stick to precisely because the nutrition industry has churned out plenty of low-fat, high carb foods for the past 30-40 years? It's a viciously self-perpetuating cycle.

    Still, it is not too hard. At first it takes some effort while you check which of your favorite high-carb foods have low-carb versions. A lot of them do. There is low-carb bread. There is low-carb pizza. There are even low-carb alternatives to pasta.

    Except low-carb breads and pastas suck ass.

    And I'm not talking about the nutrition industry's designated "low fat" foods. Yes, marketed low-fat alternatives usually suck and are filled with HFCS to compensate. When I'm talking about low-fat eating, I mean eating stuff that is naturally low-fat: fruits, vegetables, lean cuts of meat, and so on. Low-fat milk versus whole milk (which is also higher in protein, so win-win).

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • geckahngeckahn regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Eljeffe, you realize low-carb diets are more difficult to stick to precisely because the nutrition industry has churned out plenty of low-fat, high carb foods for the past 30-40 years? It's a viciously self-perpetuating cycle.

    Still, it is not too hard. At first it takes some effort while you check which of your favorite high-carb foods have low-carb versions. A lot of them do. There is low-carb bread. There is low-carb pizza. There are even low-carb alternatives to pasta.

    Except low-carb breads and pastas suck ass.

    And I'm not talking about the nutrition industry's designated "low fat" foods. Yes, marketed low-fat alternatives usually suck and are filled with HFCS to compensate. When I'm talking about low-fat eating, I mean eating stuff that is naturally low-fat: fruits, vegetables, lean cuts of meat, and so on. Low-fat milk versus whole milk (which is also higher in protein, so win-win).

    Fat is delicious and healthy

    geckahn on
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Okay I've decided to embark on one of these low-carb diets(actually decided couple days ago), and heres my problem: I am a pretty good cook, but when trying to keep my daily carbs <20g I don't have a fucking clue what to do. I can make a bechamel(I know flour but 1 tbls spoon is only 6g carbs and I am not consuming all 4 cups of sauce in one day), but what the fuck do I put it on?

    Same problem with side dishes(aside from salad). Is the only solution to replace steak and potatoes with steak and another steak?

    tinwhiskers on
    How do you spell Justice?B D S Non-Violent Resistance to Israel Apartheid & Occupation.
  • Eggplant WizardEggplant Wizard regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010

    In the absence of carbohydrates, the body turns to fat for energy. Where this fat comes from, it doesn't really care. It can come from diet. If not enough comes from diet, then the body secretes a hormone called glucagon to signal the fat cells to release their fat into the blood so that it can be converted into ketones. These ketones are then used by your other cells for energy. The result is a reduction in body fat.

    If more fat comes from the diet than the body can use, it will upregulate the metabolism to burn some of the excess (the individual might have a *slightly* increased body temperature and might feel hyper), and store the rest in fat tissue (because likely, such a diet will also contain protein, which also causes *some* insulin to be secreted, although not nearly as much as carbs do).

    Overall though, it is MUCH harder to gain weight on a low-carb diet, and MUCH easier to lose it.

    So, would it be strictly true then that one must also regulate fat intake in order to lose weight on a low-carb diet, or is it possibly possible to lose body fat with a dietary fat surplus?

    What happens to the protein in this scenario? Is it simply flushed?

    I'm not trying to bust your balls here; I'm leaning towards the "pro" camp when it comes to low-carb, but I'm not educated enough on how it all really works.

    Eggplant Wizard on
    Hello
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited May 2010

    If more fat comes from the diet than the body can use, it will upregulate the metabolism to burn some of the excess (the individual might have a *slightly* increased body temperature and might feel hyper), and store the rest in fat tissue (because likely, such a diet will also contain protein, which also causes *some* insulin to be secreted, although not nearly as much as carbs do).

    Overall though, it is MUCH harder to gain weight on a low-carb diet, and MUCH easier to lose it.

    these two statements don't seem to parse, at least to me.

    If eating more fat calories than you are currently burning causes them to go directly into fat cells, how is then harder to gain weight on a low carb, high fat diet?

    Or do I not understand the diet?

    EDIT: I think I just asked the same question Eggplant Wizard did, but in a different manner.

    Arch on
  • geckahngeckahn regular Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Okay I've decided to embark on one of these low-carb diets(actually decided couple days ago), and heres my problem: I am a pretty good cook, but when trying to keep my daily carbs <20g I don't have a fucking clue what to do. I can make a bechamel(I know flour but 1 tbls spoon is only 6g carbs and I am not consuming all 4 cups of sauce in one day), but what the fuck do I put it on?

    Same problem with side dishes(aside from salad). Is the only solution to replace steak and potatoes with steak and another steak?

    either increase your meat, or add another veggie. I'm a big fan of steamed brocolli.

    geckahn on
Sign In or Register to comment.