13 ms·

As someone who's successfully lost a lot of weight on a low carb / no grain diet, this chart irks me. That a handful of almonds has the same calories as a certa

As someone who's successfully lost a lot of weight on a low carb / no grain diet, this chart irks me. That a handful of almonds has the same calories as a certain amount of Captain Crunch is irrelevant. The latter will quickly convert to glucose in your body, however, (unlike almonds) and that will make a huge difference in your satiety levels, insulin response (Hello, Metabolic Syndrome!), etc... [1] Some good resources: http://whole9life.com/start/ http://whole9life.com/start/ http://thepaleodiet.com/ http://thepaleodiet.com/ [1] Standard disclaimers. I'm not a nutritionist. This works for me. YMMV.

TomGullen 14y ago
I'm down 14kg in 120 days on a keto based diet. Works brilliantly, sustainably and enjoyable. Carbs are also full of empty calories, better to eat more nutrients like fat! I'm healthier because of that. The chart isn't particularly useful, but it's still interesting imo Whatever works for you of course is the best. Regrettably I've been a bit preachy about keto diets before, but understand now that some people prefer calorie counting better and it works for them, so fair enough!
- sneak 14y ago
  Ketogenic diets are more trouble than they're worth. There's nothing inherently wrong with carbohydrates.
  - TomGullen 14y ago
    You can't say it's more trouble than it's worth because it's a sweeping generalisation, and different diets work better for different people. Calorie restricted diet I have failed at many times before. Keto was difficult for the first month but now it's a doddle. There's nothing wrong with carbohydrates either. Never said that. Carbs in moderation is a diet that most people I know seem to exist healthily and happily off. However elimination of carbohydrates is a tactic that's giving me awesome results, making me happy and more energetic. You do not need to consume carbohydrates to stay alive of be healthy.
    - analog 14y ago
      Absolutely this. Everybody's body is different and respond in different ways. You have to work out what works for you.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    I'll chime in with the former posters in favor of ketogenic diets. YMMV, but I personally find it much easier to stay on a ketogenic diet. Check out the Applebee's menu (fairly typical): http://www.applebees.com/~/media/docs/applebees_nutritional_info.pdf http://www.applebees.com/~/media/docs/applebees_nutritional_... A 12 oz NY Strip + seasonal veggies will run you about 520-540 calories. That's under half as many calories as any of the fajitas, pasta dishes, and most of the salads. It's also half as many calories as any of the sandwiches. It's bread and pasta that isn't worth it (unless you're poor and need lots of calories per dollar). The food pyramid makes people think bread is good for you, so people dramatically underestimate how many calories they take in from bread. A typical American diet might have two slices of toast at breakfast, two pieces of sandwich bread or a bagel at lunch, and a baked potato for dinner. These are simple accompaniments, not the stars of the meal, yet they add up to a staggering 700 calories daily. You could replace that with two slices of bacon at each meal and still cut your calorie intake substantially.
- c1u 14y ago
  Carbs are NOT "empty calories", there is no such thing.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    The traditional definition of empty calories would be something like a spoonful of sugar. That's an extreme example, but the idea is that the food in question provides calories without nutrients. So there is such a thing and it makes plenty of sense. (USDA takes my side: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calo...)
    - c1u 14y ago
      "calories without nutrients" does not makes sense at all. A spoonful of sugar contains 100% nutrients. That link is total nonsense. For example it claims pizza is empty calories, but bread, cheese, tomatoes, meat & veggies are not? It's ridiculous.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - maxerickson 14y ago
        Yeah, sorry, a better phrase would be "energy calories without any other nutrients". Which I thought was implied. But I forget that imprecise communication works less and less.
      - a_c_s 14y ago
        No, a spoonful of refined white sugar contains 100% calories. It does not contain any minerals, vitamins, protein, essential fatty acids, micronutrients or antioxidants, which in the context of this discussion, is what is meant by saying it has no nutrients.
        c1u 14y ago
        There are only 4 macronutrients (foods metabolism can run on): carbs, fat, protein, & ethanol. So if you believe protein & fat are nutrients, then you must believe carbs are as well.
sneak 14y ago
lol paleo I've been losing weight lately without any fad diet. I just cut my caloric intake by 20% and boosted my caloric output by 20-30% with regular exercise.
- bisu 14y ago
  good luck trying to sustain that
  - sneak 14y ago
    The joke's on you, sir: I have successfully repealed the first law of thermodynamics!
    - TomGullen 14y ago
      Thermodynamic laws aren't very useful when talking about weight loss and metabolism. Firstly, the human body is not an isolated system (2nd law). Also a calorie is not a calorie. One small example, different calories have different thermic effects. I've read estimations that from protein you lose 30% of the calories from the thermic effect, and with carbs you'll lose 15%. Therefore reducing carbs and upping protein will assist with weight loss further. Calories in and out will probably have you losing weight, but it's an over-simplistic view.
- anonymous 14y ago
  Same here. I lost 40 pounds and my breakfast was cookies and tea.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  What part of Paleo is a fad exactly? It's trying to replicate consumption of food we evolved off. A pretty simple idea. Sugar/carbs are not something readily available in human history in the vast quantities we eat them today.
  - afterburner 14y ago
    Fad: An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze. Just because the idea came from the prehistoric doesn't mean it can't be a fad.
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
I'm of the opinion that you can eat as many fruits and vegetables as you want and it shouldn't hurt you. You might not lose weight eating too many fruits, but you'll be a lot healthier. When I need to lose weight, my go-to is Okra. A bag of frozen okra is, IIRC, about 150 calories and eating 3/4 a bag will have you over-full.
- driverdan 14y ago
  Fruit is high in sugar (fructose). Some fruit, like apples, have low calorie density and high fiber and water content so they are very filling for the calories you consume. Others, like grapes and bananas, have higher calorie density and should be eaten in moderation just like anything else that's full of sugar.
c1u 14y ago
Almonds are mostly fat, and not very satiating either. I've done the paleo/lowcarb fad diets too. They just trick you into eating fewer calories by forbidding most of the food you ate before the diet. Not to mention some versions of these diets are based on incorrect understanding of human physiology. For example, despite what the paleotards will tell you, carbs are very rarely converted into body fat. But when you eat any food in excess of TDEE, the dietary fat you eat is stored instead of used as fuel. Even if you eat zero carbs, if you eat more than your TDEE, you will gain fat.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Most diets are based on tricking you to eat fewer calories. Eating fewer calories is the only real proven way to lose weight. So-called "fad" diets just give you a strategy so you don't feel like you're starving yourself. Some people are successful with brute-force calorie cutting, or strict calorie watching, but there's nothing wrong with following a plan either, even if it is a "fad".
  - c1u 14y ago
    Agreed! I enjoyed eating paleo/low-carb for a while, but now I eat IIFYM and get the same or better results, because no food is off limits If It Fits My Macros. :) In the end ALL diets work, but the best diet is the one you can stick with.
- juliano_q 14y ago
  Almonds are probably the most satiating food that I know. I eat a few of them and I am satiated for hours.
- rb2k_ 14y ago
  > They just trick you into eating fewer calories by forbidding most of the food you ate before the diet. I eat more calories than before judging by the amounts of meat/butter/nuts that I eat. I lost 15 kilos in body weight accompanied by a 5% reduction in body fat (-> gained muscle). So at least on a personal level, I can really not confirm this. An interesting article backing the low-carb high-fat diets that has links to the matching double blind studies: http://authoritynutrition.com/11-biggest-lies-of-mainstream-nutrition/ http://authoritynutrition.com/11-biggest-lies-of-mainstream-...
kjackson2012 14y ago
I'm currently on a low-carb diet. Since June 2012, I've been tracking my weight almost daily, the food I ate, and the amount of times I've worked out. I drastically increased my workouts from October to December, working out almost 4-5 times per week, and I gained 10 lbs. This was accompanied by a change in diet, since my company started offering free lunches. In January, I went with low-carb (less than 30g of carbs per day), and besides cutting out most carbs like bread, pasta and rice, I increased the amount of meat and vegetables I ate. I actually eat more after being on this diet than before. As well, I cut my workouts down to 2-3x per day. Since then, I've lost 15 lbs. So, with less workouts, more food, and within 8 weeks, I've lost more weight than any period in the last 8 months. When you look at the graph of my weight over time, you can see that the only significant factor in weight reduction was my low-carb diet.
- Shivetya 14y ago
  anecdotal evidence I will add, I lost 30 pounds from February to July last year with a break fast that was either 2 donuts or bagels from Dunkin Donuts along with their large coffee and cream. I simply counted calories and worked out. I aimed for 1600-2000 a day and the weight just came off. One snack I had to drop, and mean I had to because it was a binge type snack, was nuts. The calories I was consuming were silly. When I measured out my quarter cup (200 calorie average) it was shocking. My belief, the majority of people have no clue how many calories they truly consume and even a simple picture chart like this one may be the hint they need.
  - kjackson2012 14y ago
    There are plenty of ways to lose weight. Cutting calories is a very effective way of losing weight. This doesn't discount the fact that cutting carbs also works. In my case, it has been working spectacularly. I believe that I don't need to cut calories or cut the amount of food I eat, and still lose weight, by choosing food that is very low in carbs. I limit myself to 1 granola bar per day, plus whatever incidental amounts of carbs I eat through other means, and I've been able to lose a lot of weight in a short period of time. I don't overeat meat or fat, I eat the same diet, just a lot less carbs.
Aloisius 14y ago
As someone who has lost a lot of weight on a diet that is actually healthy as opposed to a hack, I protest your protest. I eat mostly the things at the top of the chart (though not the soda/milk/meat) and lost about 4 lbs a week until I leveled out at a normal weight without compromising my nutrition. [1] Some good resources: http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/ETLBook.aspx http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/ETLBook.aspx [1] That said, we both agree that that kind of sugar won't fill you up. I only disagree that eating large quantities of meat or fat is in any way healthy.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  Can you explain why you think fat is bad for you
  - Aloisius 14y ago
    There is a well-established link between fat intake and heart disease. [1] Both saturated fat and trans-fat contribute towards increased blood cholesterol and clogged arteries. That research didn't become invalid just because you can lose weight on a low-carb diet. Now unsaturated fats at moderate levels? Absolutely necessary. A bit of saturated fat in your diet? No problem. But a diet that consists of upwards of 20% saturated fat? You might as well go on low dose aspirin while awaiting your heart attack. (Note: there are conflicting studies, but meta-analysis seems still to side with this contention. Really the only desenting papers are funded by bigAg, on very high fiber diets or had testing flaws - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascula...)
    - msluyter 14y ago
      Tell that to the Inuits. ;) Actually, there's a lot of counterevidence to this "well-established" link between fat and heart disease. The classic on the subject is Gary Taube's "Good Calories, Bad Calories." But also, check out William Davis' blog (he's a cardiologist who recommends a low carb diet.) Or this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2%20Am%20J%20Clin%20Nutr http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?itool=EntrezSyst.... Remember when eggs used to be bad for you, because they had high cholesterol, and then they became ok again? (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/eggs-regain-reputation/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/eggs-regain-reputat...) I'm afraid I don't fully trust any source of nutritional information until I've tested it empirically. Which I did. I cut out all grains and found that my cholesterol plummeted and I lost a lot of weight (and I have more energy.) That's on a moderate fat diet. I'm just one anecdote, of course. I invite people to experiment for themselves.
mistercow 14y ago
The main thing that's useful about low-carb diets is that foods high in protein and fat are filling. You don't need ketosis (which is probably a harmful medical condition) to lose weight, but if you get most of your calories from carbohydrates, you'll tend to have trouble feeling satisfied without going overboard on calories. So you're partially right about satiety levels, but in my experience eating something high in carbs won't make you more hungry; it just won't do much to make you less hungry. When I'm doing caloric restriction, I try to eat just enough carbs to stave off ketosis, and it works pretty well.
- kafkaesque 14y ago
  See, this is what is so interesting to me. It takes more good fats and protein to fill me up. Good carbs fill me up very, very fast.
- BSousa 14y ago
  I had the opposite feeling. In general, I try to eat lowish carbs (maybe 50-100g a day) avoiding mostly grain based products. When I was more seriously tracking what I ate and did a lot of weight lifting, I ended up eating a few more carbs (maybe around 200g) on training days. Basically high fat/low carb on non training days, moderate carb/low fat on training days. Protein remained the same. The days I was more satisfied were the carb days. The problem was the next day. Whenever I ate a lot of carbs, the next day I would just feel hungry all the time even though all I ate was protein and fat. The days following not having carbs, even though I ate carbs, I rarely felt hungry.
kafkaesque 14y ago
Firstly, I am not a nutritionist. I've been weight-training for a couple of years, was vegetarian for about 8 years, and I'm back to eating meats for three years now. I also run a lot. Right now, my diet probably consists of around 40% protein, 40% carbs, and 20% fat, to slightly varying degrees per week. I watch what I eat and study what I eat quite a bit, though. I've tried the ketosis thing, the low-carb thing, the good high-carb thing. The only thing I've not tried was the high good-fat diet, because I tend to break out and/or get really oily skin when I eat fatty stuff. (Having said that, my skin was the best when I was ovo-lacto vegetarian.) As everyone has said, each body is very different and the way your body uses what as fuel differs depending on your lifestyle. Having said that, I do believe everyone has a "sweet spot". That is, a diet and exercise regime that works almost perfectly. I've read people that have been weight training for years that say they go into ketosis with around 100g of carbs a day. Many say this is impossible, but I've seen pictures of the dudes, and unless those aren't his, he seems to be doing extremely well. Personally, I could never go into ketosis with nowhere near that amount. What I also found to be true is that you can either have lots of carbs and protein and little fat, or lots of fat and protein and little carbs. If you have lots of fat and lots of carbs at the same time, you will get fat quickly. The whole .8g to 1.5g per kilo (of your weight) for protein seems to work for me, as well. Another thing that I've noticed that is very important, and this is with regard to what you say about insulin, is monitoring your glycemic index levels, because this is another way you can get fat. Unfortunately, this can be tricky, because theoretically, even fruits can get you fat once you consider the excess increase/energy that you do not expend. Lastly, macronutrients! Getting in your macronutrients within your caloric intake I've found to be mandatory, especially if you're working out.
smackfu 14y ago
To be honest, everyone thinks the diet that worked for them is great, and all the other ones are bullshit. Most people will lose weight on any restrictive diet they stick to. Most people can't stick to a diet.
- tgrass 14y ago
  His comment could have been made without mention of his having dieted.
  - jobowoo 14y ago
    I think smackfu is referring to folks not being able stick tot he low carb / no grain diet.
  - smackfu 14y ago
    Yeah, but in my experience, the people going around saying "calories are stupid" are invariably supporters of low carb diets. (Because no one else cares.)
grecy 14y ago
You're falling into the standard weight loss trap... "It's too hard, it's too complicated, I'll never lose weight". For the vast majority of people that need to lose weight, keeping it simple is the best thing. Goal: Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) Once they've lost a chunk of weight, they can start dialing it in with complicated stuff about carbs vs. fat vs. protein etc, etc, etc,
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) While true, that statement is useless. It doesn't take into account the effect insulin has on the ability one has to actually take in those fewer calories. It also doesn't take into account metabolic pathways that allow one to eat more of certain kinds of foods than others. The scientific literature is pretty clear (once you filter out the government propaganda that caused 300 million people to be unwitting participants in a dietetic experiment): If you[1] want to loose weight and be healthier, screw calories and worry about insulin (full stop!) There is nothing that more closely predicts insulin reaction than the number of carbs you are eating. Cut out all the simple carbs (which includes the bags of sugar we've cultivated as most fruit) and focus on fats, protein and very complex carbs and you will lose weight. More importantly, nothing has been shown to affect metabolic disorder[2] as positively. I look at it like this: what do we use to fatten cattle up before we slaughter them? It's corn. Now look at every nutrition label to see what is in it. Is it surprising we are fat, too? 1. The body is incredibly complex. There are people who will respond better on other diets. So take any general study with a grain of salt and experiment on yourself to find what works! 2. High blood pressure, high cholesterol, heat disease, hypoglycemia, type 2 diabetes, gout, and others have all been lumped together into a disorder that strongly appears to be the result of hyperinsulenimia (eg too much insulin in the blood stream).
  - grecy 14y ago
    You're still making it way too complicated. If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Of course, there are many, many, many tweaks to be made, but for the majority of people, who need to lose a massive amount of weight, if they eat less calories than they use, they will lose weight. End.
papsosouid 14y ago
>That a handful of almonds has the same calories as a certain amount of Captain Crunch is irrelevant. No, it really is relevant. It actually does matter. Your fad diet is not magical, just like every other fad diet was not magical. >The latter will quickly convert to glucose in your body This is irrelevant. There is no evidence at all to suggest "insulin spikes" (which are actually minor and totally normal) are a problem at all. And they occur when you consume any food, not just carbs. >will make a huge difference in your satiety levels For some people. As much as it pains true believers to hear it, many people do not lose weight on low carb diets. The only way the diet works is by making you feel full so you consume fewer calories. Many people feel very hungry without carbs, and can eat massive quantities of fat without feeling full. Those people gain weight on low carb diets.
dredmorbius 14y ago
The visualization is what it is. It's not the whole story. I can't help thinking of the nutritional value and insulinic response of most of the foodlike substances presented (some are more equal than others).

TomGullen 14y ago

I'm down 14kg in 120 days on a keto based diet. Works brilliantly, sustainably and enjoyable. Carbs are also full of empty calories, better to eat more nutrients like fat! I'm healthier because of that. The chart isn't particularly useful, but it's still interesting imo Whatever works for you of course is the best. Regrettably I've been a bit preachy about keto diets before, but understand now that some people prefer calorie counting better and it works for them, so fair enough!

sneak 14y ago
Ketogenic diets are more trouble than they're worth. There's nothing inherently wrong with carbohydrates.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  You can't say it's more trouble than it's worth because it's a sweeping generalisation, and different diets work better for different people. Calorie restricted diet I have failed at many times before. Keto was difficult for the first month but now it's a doddle. There's nothing wrong with carbohydrates either. Never said that. Carbs in moderation is a diet that most people I know seem to exist healthily and happily off. However elimination of carbohydrates is a tactic that's giving me awesome results, making me happy and more energetic. You do not need to consume carbohydrates to stay alive of be healthy.
  - analog 14y ago
    Absolutely this. Everybody's body is different and respond in different ways. You have to work out what works for you.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I'll chime in with the former posters in favor of ketogenic diets. YMMV, but I personally find it much easier to stay on a ketogenic diet. Check out the Applebee's menu (fairly typical): http://www.applebees.com/~/media/docs/applebees_nutritional_info.pdf http://www.applebees.com/~/media/docs/applebees_nutritional_... A 12 oz NY Strip + seasonal veggies will run you about 520-540 calories. That's under half as many calories as any of the fajitas, pasta dishes, and most of the salads. It's also half as many calories as any of the sandwiches. It's bread and pasta that isn't worth it (unless you're poor and need lots of calories per dollar). The food pyramid makes people think bread is good for you, so people dramatically underestimate how many calories they take in from bread. A typical American diet might have two slices of toast at breakfast, two pieces of sandwich bread or a bagel at lunch, and a baked potato for dinner. These are simple accompaniments, not the stars of the meal, yet they add up to a staggering 700 calories daily. You could replace that with two slices of bacon at each meal and still cut your calorie intake substantially.
c1u 14y ago
Carbs are NOT "empty calories", there is no such thing.
- maxerickson 14y ago
  The traditional definition of empty calories would be something like a spoonful of sugar. That's an extreme example, but the idea is that the food in question provides calories without nutrients. So there is such a thing and it makes plenty of sense. (USDA takes my side: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calo...)
  - c1u 14y ago
    "calories without nutrients" does not makes sense at all. A spoonful of sugar contains 100% nutrients. That link is total nonsense. For example it claims pizza is empty calories, but bread, cheese, tomatoes, meat & veggies are not? It's ridiculous.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      Yeah, sorry, a better phrase would be "energy calories without any other nutrients". Which I thought was implied. But I forget that imprecise communication works less and less.
    - a_c_s 14y ago
      No, a spoonful of refined white sugar contains 100% calories. It does not contain any minerals, vitamins, protein, essential fatty acids, micronutrients or antioxidants, which in the context of this discussion, is what is meant by saying it has no nutrients.
      - c1u 14y ago
        There are only 4 macronutrients (foods metabolism can run on): carbs, fat, protein, & ethanol. So if you believe protein & fat are nutrients, then you must believe carbs are as well.

sneak 14y ago

lol paleo I've been losing weight lately without any fad diet. I just cut my caloric intake by 20% and boosted my caloric output by 20-30% with regular exercise.

bisu 14y ago
good luck trying to sustain that
- sneak 14y ago
  The joke's on you, sir: I have successfully repealed the first law of thermodynamics!
  - TomGullen 14y ago
    Thermodynamic laws aren't very useful when talking about weight loss and metabolism. Firstly, the human body is not an isolated system (2nd law). Also a calorie is not a calorie. One small example, different calories have different thermic effects. I've read estimations that from protein you lose 30% of the calories from the thermic effect, and with carbs you'll lose 15%. Therefore reducing carbs and upping protein will assist with weight loss further. Calories in and out will probably have you losing weight, but it's an over-simplistic view.
anonymous 14y ago
Same here. I lost 40 pounds and my breakfast was cookies and tea.
TomGullen 14y ago
What part of Paleo is a fad exactly? It's trying to replicate consumption of food we evolved off. A pretty simple idea. Sugar/carbs are not something readily available in human history in the vast quantities we eat them today.
- afterburner 14y ago
  Fad: An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, esp. one that is short-lived; a craze. Just because the idea came from the prehistoric doesn't mean it can't be a fad.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

I'm of the opinion that you can eat as many fruits and vegetables as you want and it shouldn't hurt you. You might not lose weight eating too many fruits, but you'll be a lot healthier. When I need to lose weight, my go-to is Okra. A bag of frozen okra is, IIRC, about 150 calories and eating 3/4 a bag will have you over-full.

driverdan 14y ago
Fruit is high in sugar (fructose). Some fruit, like apples, have low calorie density and high fiber and water content so they are very filling for the calories you consume. Others, like grapes and bananas, have higher calorie density and should be eaten in moderation just like anything else that's full of sugar.

c1u 14y ago

Almonds are mostly fat, and not very satiating either. I've done the paleo/lowcarb fad diets too. They just trick you into eating fewer calories by forbidding most of the food you ate before the diet. Not to mention some versions of these diets are based on incorrect understanding of human physiology. For example, despite what the paleotards will tell you, carbs are very rarely converted into body fat. But when you eat any food in excess of TDEE, the dietary fat you eat is stored instead of used as fuel. Even if you eat zero carbs, if you eat more than your TDEE, you will gain fat.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Most diets are based on tricking you to eat fewer calories. Eating fewer calories is the only real proven way to lose weight. So-called "fad" diets just give you a strategy so you don't feel like you're starving yourself. Some people are successful with brute-force calorie cutting, or strict calorie watching, but there's nothing wrong with following a plan either, even if it is a "fad".
- c1u 14y ago
  Agreed! I enjoyed eating paleo/low-carb for a while, but now I eat IIFYM and get the same or better results, because no food is off limits If It Fits My Macros. :) In the end ALL diets work, but the best diet is the one you can stick with.
juliano_q 14y ago
Almonds are probably the most satiating food that I know. I eat a few of them and I am satiated for hours.
rb2k_ 14y ago
> They just trick you into eating fewer calories by forbidding most of the food you ate before the diet. I eat more calories than before judging by the amounts of meat/butter/nuts that I eat. I lost 15 kilos in body weight accompanied by a 5% reduction in body fat (-> gained muscle). So at least on a personal level, I can really not confirm this. An interesting article backing the low-carb high-fat diets that has links to the matching double blind studies: http://authoritynutrition.com/11-biggest-lies-of-mainstream-nutrition/ http://authoritynutrition.com/11-biggest-lies-of-mainstream-...

kjackson2012 14y ago

I'm currently on a low-carb diet. Since June 2012, I've been tracking my weight almost daily, the food I ate, and the amount of times I've worked out. I drastically increased my workouts from October to December, working out almost 4-5 times per week, and I gained 10 lbs. This was accompanied by a change in diet, since my company started offering free lunches. In January, I went with low-carb (less than 30g of carbs per day), and besides cutting out most carbs like bread, pasta and rice, I increased the amount of meat and vegetables I ate. I actually eat more after being on this diet than before. As well, I cut my workouts down to 2-3x per day. Since then, I've lost 15 lbs. So, with less workouts, more food, and within 8 weeks, I've lost more weight than any period in the last 8 months. When you look at the graph of my weight over time, you can see that the only significant factor in weight reduction was my low-carb diet.

Shivetya 14y ago
anecdotal evidence I will add, I lost 30 pounds from February to July last year with a break fast that was either 2 donuts or bagels from Dunkin Donuts along with their large coffee and cream. I simply counted calories and worked out. I aimed for 1600-2000 a day and the weight just came off. One snack I had to drop, and mean I had to because it was a binge type snack, was nuts. The calories I was consuming were silly. When I measured out my quarter cup (200 calorie average) it was shocking. My belief, the majority of people have no clue how many calories they truly consume and even a simple picture chart like this one may be the hint they need.
- kjackson2012 14y ago
  There are plenty of ways to lose weight. Cutting calories is a very effective way of losing weight. This doesn't discount the fact that cutting carbs also works. In my case, it has been working spectacularly. I believe that I don't need to cut calories or cut the amount of food I eat, and still lose weight, by choosing food that is very low in carbs. I limit myself to 1 granola bar per day, plus whatever incidental amounts of carbs I eat through other means, and I've been able to lose a lot of weight in a short period of time. I don't overeat meat or fat, I eat the same diet, just a lot less carbs.

Aloisius 14y ago

As someone who has lost a lot of weight on a diet that is actually healthy as opposed to a hack, I protest your protest. I eat mostly the things at the top of the chart (though not the soda/milk/meat) and lost about 4 lbs a week until I leveled out at a normal weight without compromising my nutrition. [1] Some good resources: http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/ETLBook.aspx http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/ETLBook.aspx [1] That said, we both agree that that kind of sugar won't fill you up. I only disagree that eating large quantities of meat or fat is in any way healthy.

TomGullen 14y ago
Can you explain why you think fat is bad for you
- Aloisius 14y ago
  There is a well-established link between fat intake and heart disease. [1] Both saturated fat and trans-fat contribute towards increased blood cholesterol and clogged arteries. That research didn't become invalid just because you can lose weight on a low-carb diet. Now unsaturated fats at moderate levels? Absolutely necessary. A bit of saturated fat in your diet? No problem. But a diet that consists of upwards of 20% saturated fat? You might as well go on low dose aspirin while awaiting your heart attack. (Note: there are conflicting studies, but meta-analysis seems still to side with this contention. Really the only desenting papers are funded by bigAg, on very high fiber diets or had testing flaws - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascula...)
  - msluyter 14y ago
    Tell that to the Inuits. ;) Actually, there's a lot of counterevidence to this "well-established" link between fat and heart disease. The classic on the subject is Gary Taube's "Good Calories, Bad Calories." But also, check out William Davis' blog (he's a cardiologist who recommends a low carb diet.) Or this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2%20Am%20J%20Clin%20Nutr http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?itool=EntrezSyst.... Remember when eggs used to be bad for you, because they had high cholesterol, and then they became ok again? (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/eggs-regain-reputation/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/eggs-regain-reputat...) I'm afraid I don't fully trust any source of nutritional information until I've tested it empirically. Which I did. I cut out all grains and found that my cholesterol plummeted and I lost a lot of weight (and I have more energy.) That's on a moderate fat diet. I'm just one anecdote, of course. I invite people to experiment for themselves.

mistercow 14y ago

The main thing that's useful about low-carb diets is that foods high in protein and fat are filling. You don't need ketosis (which is probably a harmful medical condition) to lose weight, but if you get most of your calories from carbohydrates, you'll tend to have trouble feeling satisfied without going overboard on calories. So you're partially right about satiety levels, but in my experience eating something high in carbs won't make you more hungry; it just won't do much to make you less hungry. When I'm doing caloric restriction, I try to eat just enough carbs to stave off ketosis, and it works pretty well.

kafkaesque 14y ago
See, this is what is so interesting to me. It takes more good fats and protein to fill me up. Good carbs fill me up very, very fast.
BSousa 14y ago
I had the opposite feeling. In general, I try to eat lowish carbs (maybe 50-100g a day) avoiding mostly grain based products. When I was more seriously tracking what I ate and did a lot of weight lifting, I ended up eating a few more carbs (maybe around 200g) on training days. Basically high fat/low carb on non training days, moderate carb/low fat on training days. Protein remained the same. The days I was more satisfied were the carb days. The problem was the next day. Whenever I ate a lot of carbs, the next day I would just feel hungry all the time even though all I ate was protein and fat. The days following not having carbs, even though I ate carbs, I rarely felt hungry.

kafkaesque 14y ago

Firstly, I am not a nutritionist. I've been weight-training for a couple of years, was vegetarian for about 8 years, and I'm back to eating meats for three years now. I also run a lot. Right now, my diet probably consists of around 40% protein, 40% carbs, and 20% fat, to slightly varying degrees per week. I watch what I eat and study what I eat quite a bit, though. I've tried the ketosis thing, the low-carb thing, the good high-carb thing. The only thing I've not tried was the high good-fat diet, because I tend to break out and/or get really oily skin when I eat fatty stuff. (Having said that, my skin was the best when I was ovo-lacto vegetarian.) As everyone has said, each body is very different and the way your body uses what as fuel differs depending on your lifestyle. Having said that, I do believe everyone has a "sweet spot". That is, a diet and exercise regime that works almost perfectly. I've read people that have been weight training for years that say they go into ketosis with around 100g of carbs a day. Many say this is impossible, but I've seen pictures of the dudes, and unless those aren't his, he seems to be doing extremely well. Personally, I could never go into ketosis with nowhere near that amount. What I also found to be true is that you can either have lots of carbs and protein and little fat, or lots of fat and protein and little carbs. If you have lots of fat and lots of carbs at the same time, you will get fat quickly. The whole .8g to 1.5g per kilo (of your weight) for protein seems to work for me, as well. Another thing that I've noticed that is very important, and this is with regard to what you say about insulin, is monitoring your glycemic index levels, because this is another way you can get fat. Unfortunately, this can be tricky, because theoretically, even fruits can get you fat once you consider the excess increase/energy that you do not expend. Lastly, macronutrients! Getting in your macronutrients within your caloric intake I've found to be mandatory, especially if you're working out.

smackfu 14y ago

To be honest, everyone thinks the diet that worked for them is great, and all the other ones are bullshit. Most people will lose weight on any restrictive diet they stick to. Most people can't stick to a diet.

tgrass 14y ago
His comment could have been made without mention of his having dieted.
- jobowoo 14y ago
  I think smackfu is referring to folks not being able stick tot he low carb / no grain diet.
- smackfu 14y ago
  Yeah, but in my experience, the people going around saying "calories are stupid" are invariably supporters of low carb diets. (Because no one else cares.)

grecy 14y ago

You're falling into the standard weight loss trap... "It's too hard, it's too complicated, I'll never lose weight". For the vast majority of people that need to lose weight, keeping it simple is the best thing. Goal: Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) Once they've lost a chunk of weight, they can start dialing it in with complicated stuff about carbs vs. fat vs. protein etc, etc, etc,

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Eat less calories than you use each day. (fullstop!) While true, that statement is useless. It doesn't take into account the effect insulin has on the ability one has to actually take in those fewer calories. It also doesn't take into account metabolic pathways that allow one to eat more of certain kinds of foods than others. The scientific literature is pretty clear (once you filter out the government propaganda that caused 300 million people to be unwitting participants in a dietetic experiment): If you[1] want to loose weight and be healthier, screw calories and worry about insulin (full stop!) There is nothing that more closely predicts insulin reaction than the number of carbs you are eating. Cut out all the simple carbs (which includes the bags of sugar we've cultivated as most fruit) and focus on fats, protein and very complex carbs and you will lose weight. More importantly, nothing has been shown to affect metabolic disorder[2] as positively. I look at it like this: what do we use to fatten cattle up before we slaughter them? It's corn. Now look at every nutrition label to see what is in it. Is it surprising we are fat, too? 1. The body is incredibly complex. There are people who will respond better on other diets. So take any general study with a grain of salt and experiment on yourself to find what works! 2. High blood pressure, high cholesterol, heat disease, hypoglycemia, type 2 diabetes, gout, and others have all been lumped together into a disorder that strongly appears to be the result of hyperinsulenimia (eg too much insulin in the blood stream).
- grecy 14y ago
  You're still making it way too complicated. If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters. Of course, there are many, many, many tweaks to be made, but for the majority of people, who need to lose a massive amount of weight, if they eat less calories than they use, they will lose weight. End.

papsosouid 14y ago

>That a handful of almonds has the same calories as a certain amount of Captain Crunch is irrelevant. No, it really is relevant. It actually does matter. Your fad diet is not magical, just like every other fad diet was not magical. >The latter will quickly convert to glucose in your body This is irrelevant. There is no evidence at all to suggest "insulin spikes" (which are actually minor and totally normal) are a problem at all. And they occur when you consume any food, not just carbs. >will make a huge difference in your satiety levels For some people. As much as it pains true believers to hear it, many people do not lose weight on low carb diets. The only way the diet works is by making you feel full so you consume fewer calories. Many people feel very hungry without carbs, and can eat massive quantities of fat without feeling full. Those people gain weight on low carb diets.

dredmorbius 14y ago

The visualization is what it is. It's not the whole story. I can't help thinking of the nutritional value and insulinic response of most of the foodlike substances presented (some are more equal than others).