4 ms·

Carbohydrates are not inherently unhealthy.

by erhk 5y ago

camhart 5y ago
I'd add to this that loosing weight simply requires a calorie deficit. There is no requirement that you must eat large portions of meat to loose weight. With that being said, eating low carb may be an easier way for some. Don't want to discount that.
- kcplate 5y ago
  While this is mostly true…there are other factors at play that can make this deficit difficult. I went for 2 months without losing a pound despite a net -1000kcal between diet, exercise, and my “probable” BMR. My suspicion is that my BMR dropped when my body realized it was basically in a famine state and decided to conserve every calorie it could any way it could.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    That's almost certainly not what happened. While your body will get more efficient in starvation conditions it takes time and doesn't start instantly. There are certain biases that people have with weight loss and eating that are very common and result in less results than you expect. There's a good chance your "probable" bmr was overestimating calorie burn. If you were basing calories burned in exercise from what a machine at the gym was telling you, it almost certainly overstated the calorie burn. Unless you meticulously weighed everything you put in your mouth you probably ate more calories than you think you did. Even if you did measure everything carefully and accurately, there's some degree of error in the nutrition data on packaging. The truth is that you probably didn't have a 1000 cal daily deficit for 2 months. That kind of deficit should drop your weight by about 15 lbs in that time. Even fairly extreme fluid fluctuations wouldn't cover that weight loss unless you started dehydrated and fairly overweight.
    - goostavos 5y ago
      You're getting downvoted because, I assume, you didn't include the possibility of magic as a an explanation in your analysis. Rookie mistake in these threads. While it may superficially seem like yours was the best explanation for lack of weight loss -- that OP made a simple error and over-estimated his caloric deficit (and further didn't adjust the deficit when receiving data to the contrary)-- what you need to account for are the "other factors" which currently exceeds our understanding of biology and physics. Using these 'other factors' it's possible to do everything right, and still not lose weight (through no fault of your own).
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO. Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues. It's not at all improbable that BMR can be affected significantly by dieting in some individuals, a priori. It could also be affected by other lifestyle changes that happened together with the dieting, such as medication.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO. Not really, but that doesn't mean CICO is actionable. > Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues. That's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.)
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        Oops, you're right, CICO theoretically accounts for BMR differences and appetite differences.
        kcplate 5y ago
        > at's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.) That was basically my point. BMR can fluctuate making CICO a piss poor oversimplified explanation for weight loss. My example was real, it did happen to me. My calories in was meticulously recorded. Calories out is less accurate, but the calories burned in exercise were not dramatically inaccurate enough to explain the lack of progress. The only other factor outside my conscious control was BMR.
- nazgul17 5y ago
  My understanding is that that is an old way of thinking that sounds good but doesn't work. You need to put in the right type of calories: high GI foods will make it harder for you to lose weight by stimulating insulin production which in turns stimulates your cells to sequester all the sugar in your blood and turn it into fat (and you get lethargic and hungry as a bonus). You also need to exercise as your diet continues: your body will slowly burn muscle mass if your intake decreases for long enough, and with less muscle you burn less and eventually hit a wall. Exercise replenishes that muscle mass (assuming you eat enough protein). It's complicated. I'm not a medical doctor, the above is just my understanding, so take it with a grain of salt.
kcplate 5y ago
They are when you are a type 2 diabetic and your body cannot handle them properly.
cko 5y ago
But they're inherently cheap! And more addictive, apparently, based on how my friends crave them all the time.

Carbohydrates are not inherently unhealthy.

by erhk 5y ago

Carbohydrates are not inherently unhealthy.

I'd add to this that loosing weight simply requires a calorie deficit. There is no requirement that you must eat large portions of meat to loose weight. With that being said, eating low carb may be an easier way for some. Don't want to discount that.

kcplate 5y ago
While this is mostly true…there are other factors at play that can make this deficit difficult. I went for 2 months without losing a pound despite a net -1000kcal between diet, exercise, and my “probable” BMR. My suspicion is that my BMR dropped when my body realized it was basically in a famine state and decided to conserve every calorie it could any way it could.
- fredophile 5y ago
  That's almost certainly not what happened. While your body will get more efficient in starvation conditions it takes time and doesn't start instantly. There are certain biases that people have with weight loss and eating that are very common and result in less results than you expect. There's a good chance your "probable" bmr was overestimating calorie burn. If you were basing calories burned in exercise from what a machine at the gym was telling you, it almost certainly overstated the calorie burn. Unless you meticulously weighed everything you put in your mouth you probably ate more calories than you think you did. Even if you did measure everything carefully and accurately, there's some degree of error in the nutrition data on packaging. The truth is that you probably didn't have a 1000 cal daily deficit for 2 months. That kind of deficit should drop your weight by about 15 lbs in that time. Even fairly extreme fluid fluctuations wouldn't cover that weight loss unless you started dehydrated and fairly overweight.
  - goostavos 5y ago
    You're getting downvoted because, I assume, you didn't include the possibility of magic as a an explanation in your analysis. Rookie mistake in these threads. While it may superficially seem like yours was the best explanation for lack of weight loss -- that OP made a simple error and over-estimated his caloric deficit (and further didn't adjust the deficit when receiving data to the contrary)-- what you need to account for are the "other factors" which currently exceeds our understanding of biology and physics. Using these 'other factors' it's possible to do everything right, and still not lose weight (through no fault of your own).
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO. Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues. It's not at all improbable that BMR can be affected significantly by dieting in some individuals, a priori. It could also be affected by other lifestyle changes that happened together with the dieting, such as medication.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > There are all sorts of things that control weight gain/loss outside CICO. Not really, but that doesn't mean CICO is actionable. > Most notably, BMR can vary wildly with hormonal and endocrine issues. That's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.)
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        Oops, you're right, CICO theoretically accounts for BMR differences and appetite differences.
        kcplate 5y ago
        > at's not outside of CICO, since BMR is a central element of “calories out”. Of course, it is a reason CICO is not as simple as advocates make it out to be (and there are more problems like that on both the CI and CO sides.) That was basically my point. BMR can fluctuate making CICO a piss poor oversimplified explanation for weight loss. My example was real, it did happen to me. My calories in was meticulously recorded. Calories out is less accurate, but the calories burned in exercise were not dramatically inaccurate enough to explain the lack of progress. The only other factor outside my conscious control was BMR.
nazgul17 5y ago
My understanding is that that is an old way of thinking that sounds good but doesn't work. You need to put in the right type of calories: high GI foods will make it harder for you to lose weight by stimulating insulin production which in turns stimulates your cells to sequester all the sugar in your blood and turn it into fat (and you get lethargic and hungry as a bonus). You also need to exercise as your diet continues: your body will slowly burn muscle mass if your intake decreases for long enough, and with less muscle you burn less and eventually hit a wall. Exercise replenishes that muscle mass (assuming you eat enough protein). It's complicated. I'm not a medical doctor, the above is just my understanding, so take it with a grain of salt.

kcplate 5y ago

They are when you are a type 2 diabetic and your body cannot handle them properly.

cko 5y ago

But they're inherently cheap! And more addictive, apparently, based on how my friends crave them all the time.