Years on LCHF- Diet Datasheet.
09-21-2014, 01:55 PM
Bibloswaggins:
Thanks for the further elaboration. I can better see from where you are developing your ideas. I disagree with some of your main underlying assumptions, but at least you further explained regarding some of the ideas. Let me see if I can respond within the context of the points you are making.
Quote: (09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:
As I can understand, in this thread we're sharing experiences and giving advice to the average dude who wants to cut his weight and improve his health - in this case, calorie restriction is necessary, not carb restriction. At the end of the day, all kinds of diets have worked and they have only one thing in common - calorie restriction.
It is possible that OP is engaging in calorie restrictions in the whole scheme of things; however, he does NOT seem to be basing his plan on calorie restriction - but rather just changing the kinds of foods that he eats and restricting his intake of carb heavy foods and attempting to eat good fats.
To frame what OP is doing as calorie restriction, and to describe all successful diets as calorie restrictions, in my thinking is way to simplified and also seems to be buying into a mainstream dogma regarding calories. The Gary Taubes books that I mentioned earlier in this thread go through extensive analysis to debunk the myths about calories, and actually there are a lot of diets in the low carb world and the keto world and the paleo world that strive to de-emphasize the importance of calories by either talking about quality of foods or kinds of foods. Some of these other framings of diets completely shun the idea of restrictions and allow for people to eat as much as they want, so long as they are eating the correct kinds of foods. So your attempt to pigeon-hole those strategies into calorie restrictions seems to be both missing the point and inaccurate.
Quote: (09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:
My own experience has shown that low carb is definitely a good tool in certain situations, but staying in constant ketosis - for a fit guy such as myself - is both very hard, pointless and hard on the wallet. The health marker benefits are most likely due to lower body fat percentage, not due to eating less carbs.
Actually, I think that you may be correct that there have been studies to demonstrate that lower body fat and especially visceral fat has proven to show a very large correlation with improvement of a variety of biomarkers.. blood work improvement and other beneficial health outcome come about by merely lowering body fat percentages (and visceral fat levels).
You may also be correct that some of the better foods cost more money and I may add sometimes eating the better foods may cause more time for preparation or even locating good food sources... fuck... .. but in the end, it remains less clear whether going through these extra costs are really more expensive in the whole scheme of things... and that will likely vary from individual to individual. It may be much cheaper to engage in preventative medicine than to be stuck taking drugs and being hospitalized and suffering from various negative health effects - so arguments can be made regarding whether eating cheaply is really cheaper in the long run... I will concede though that in the short run and the narrow picture does seem to support your conclusion that guys will need to pay more money for higher quality foods.
Quote: (09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:
My point is that ultimately a calorie is a calorie.
That is a trite point if you are making it, and it is also incorrect because a calorie is NOT a calorie, and you seem to even negate this point when you talk about quality below....
For example the calories in a bag of chips and soda may be the same as the calories from a boiled egg and coconut juice; however, the egg and coconut juice are going to give much better nutrition to the body than the chips and soda - especially, if the guy's body is able to absorb the nutrients from the food. So if a guy is in the habit of drinking sodas and eating chips all day, his body may NOT be as capable as absorbing nutrients as the guy who is eating nutritious foods.
Quote: (09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:
This however doesn't mean that you shouldn't develop good eating habits. If the goal is weight loss, then your main priority is staying below maintenance calories. Once this is done, you can start play around with macros.
These do NOT need to be accomplished in the order that you are stating. That is a weird concept to suggest that you should restrict calories first? Makes little sense.
Quote: (09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:
A big thing many people don't think about when it comes to food is satiety. This is where the ''magic'' of low-carb diets is at. By putting an emphasis on whole foods and protein, it's harder to go overboard with your calories.
Guys in this thread are NOT neglecting to discuss satiety, and you are right that satiety is a good point, yet in your discussion above about satiety you are forgetting to talk about fats - which seems to be an emphasis of this thread.
Also, don't mix up low carb high fat with high protein concepts, becuse they seem to be different. A lot of the thinking in the low carb high fat thinking is to allow for adequate and good protein - but does NOT necessarily emphasize protein but instead seems to emphasize eating good fats for satiety and nutrition.. which seems to be part of OPs emphasis.
Actually, people could end up going overboard on protein, if they do NOT eat enough fats.
Quote: (09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:
It's not so much about restricting carbs, it's about restricting foods that are calorie-dense.
You seem to be devolving down the road of calorie density in some of the mainstream misconcpetions of foods.. that are real distractions because a lot of those mainstream ideas that emphasize calorie density direct people away from fats because fats have more calories per gram than either protein or carbohydrates. A large majority of the low carb high fat followers do NOT get into those kinds of quagmires regarding calorie density conceptions because they do NOT tend to restrict good quality fats or to engage in portion controls on the good quality fats, even though they may end up restricting in other manners. Now the more sophisticated of the LCHF movement will recognize the differences between fats and will stay away from various industrial oils and fats (such as partially hydrogenated oils, soybean oil, canola oil, vegetable oils, margerines, transfats) and pile on the good oils/fats (coconut oil, tallow, lard, butter, raw high fat dairy).
Quote: (09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:
If you know what the macroes of the foods you're eating are, and you have a good enough control of your hunger, you're free to eat all the stuff you want as long as you stay below maintenance.
Again, you are framing this point in terms of calorie restrictions.. which again seems to divert and distract from the main points.