We see an increase with heart disease, diabetes, and cancers...because our society developed a weight issue (overweight and obesity). Not because of low fat or high carb or low carb or..... We eat too much food! We take in too many calories...and those calories can comecome from We move to little!
I've been eating the Zone Diet for about 18 years and my results have been fantastic. It's a diet/lifestyle of moderation, 40% of calories from carbohydrate, 30% calories from protein and 30% calories from fat. The carbohydrate portion is composed mostly of vegetables and fruit, with little to no grain. During the first 2 year of eating this way I lost 100 pounds. I've kept it off and have tons of energy. It's literally changes my life for the better.
Low fat seems to be a big loser, since when we switched to it, Americans increased cancer, diabetes and heart problems at an alarming rate. So I think it is funny when side effects are mentioned with low carb. I think both diets work for some people, but since increased risk of death is a side effect of low fat it seems, how about we don't say low carb has side effects, without saying low fat leads to 50% obesity, increased cancer, diabetes, and heart attacks, with death as a possible side effect. All of a sudden, low carb side effects seem to be barely worth mentioning..lol
If someone can make low fat work for them despite these huge side effects, I think we can find ways to fix the smaller side effects caused by low carb. It seems worth it, to have less hunger, better health, more energy, and much faster weight loss.
I believe we can make either diet work, but as a nation, we would be better off if we embraced low carb. I think a higher % of people would get to a healthier weight. Even better would be acknowledging that both work for some, and stop trying to promote ONE diet.
Fitness Minutes: (14,729)
791 11/26/12 2:47 P
I feel miserable on low-fat diets, particularly vegetarian & vegan low-fat, even the SP recommended range which I consider lower-fat. Was difficult to lose weight despite tons of exercise, and I felt "off" all of the time likely due to blood sugar issues. I also do not feel great on very-low-carb... makes me sluggish.
So most of the time I eat "lower carb" and high fat (olive oil, coconut oil, saturated fats too). Frankly, it feels fantastic and has made it easy for me to lose weight. I do not deprive myself of treats & indulgences either, I just make sure to eat enough fruits, veggies, meats, eggs most of the time.
Fitness Minutes: (16,232)
385 11/26/12 2:30 P
Thanks Omender for the link...interesting and enlightening.
There was a study done recently that discussed just this topic. The researchers compared low fat, low carb, and low glycemic index diets. Low fat came out as the loser in terms of weight lost and slowing of metabolism. Low carb was best for weight loss but has other side effects. Low glycemic index diets were just in the middle for weight loss but appear to be easier to stick long term and did not have the side effects of the low carb diet. The study is published in JAMA and you can find the abstract online without signing in. A summary is linked below. The study is preliminary, so cannot be taken as absolute fact, but is interesting and fits with anecdotal experience in my knowledge. www.wbur.org/npr/160757730/low-and-slow-ma y-be-the-way-to-go-when-it-comes-to-di eting And this one outlinesnit even better online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304 458604577490943279845790.html
Edited by: EXNOLA at: 11/26/2012 (14:32)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
11/26/12 1:36 P
I haven't tried low fat, I have tried other diets to lose weight,. Diets that involve using calorie defecits to lose 1lb a week. I was attempting to eat 2000-2200 kcals/day. On this diet, I always felt hungry, and didn't see much results at all...
On Friday, I began a low carb diet (Atkins). I weighed 272 on friday morning, I weigh just over 260 right now. I have also found that when I was eating carbs, I became hungry more often. But on Atkins I have been eating around 1700 kcals/day (not much for a 6' 2", 260lb guy) and not feeling hungry throughout the day. If you wanna see results and not feel hungry all the time, go low-carb, your body will thank you for it. Don't forget to drink water and eat some veggies
Neither. I eat a balanced diet with the recommended amounts of both fats and carbs.
I think that the key is to pick healthy fats like those in avocados, olive oil, nut butters, etc. and healthy carbs like those in fruits, vegetables and whole grains.
11/26/12 12:03 P
Low fat. In particular, low saturated fat. If I check saturated fat to eat foods that have the least - ideally 0 - I end up getting some saturated fat in my diet but loads more monounsaturated fat and omega-3 polyunsaturated fats. Keeping diet choices low in fat becomes a habit and the result is that I don't have huge amounts of fat in my diet. Which allows me to eat lots more fruits and vegetables. (Weight Watchers allows lots of those anyway, and their philosophy dovetails nicely with mine, even though the meetings are motivational and supportive in nature.) The overall effect is a lot of variety with much fewer calories. Also, a lotta, lotta fiber!
I eat low carb, and high fat. My brother eats low fat, high carb. We both have lost over 100 lbs.
It isn't low fat VS. low carb.. It is low fat, OR low carb. Both work if followed. It is mostly about preference. I prefer meat and veggies. He prefers cereal, sandwiches, and noodles.
I can't lose if I eat carbs, and he can't stick to low carb. It should be high carb, or high fat diets, if we were truthful. Fat, or carbs are used for energy. Protein for both of us is simlar.
If I eat very high protein, I don't lose either. So low carb is not necessarily good. Only when I eat over 50% fat do I lose. So I would say I am on a high fat diet in reality. I eat about 70% fat, and my brother eats about 60% carbs, and they both work for us.
What's really important is the health benefits of losing 100 lbs. We shouldn't care how we do it. Just get to a healthy weight, and maintain it. Whatever diet does that is the best diet for YOU.
Fitness Minutes: (79,213)
11/25/12 1:31 P
For me very low carb is not sustainable at all. But eating at the lower end of my caloric range seems to work fine. My fat intake is in the middle of my range, usually. My protein intake is also at the lower end of my range usually. I don't think I have problems with my current macronutrient ratios.
I go more low carb than low fat, in part because I don't really have a sweet tooth to begin with. I don't worship the percentages, but I try to eat within a general guideline, and for me whole foods trumps the over-processed new supermarket items on those center aisles. Healthy carbs are ones that don't immediately turn into sugars. Healthy fats and oils work with, instead of against, the body. I'd rather eat a whole milk yogurt made from pastured goats or cows than eat a 0% fat Yoplait (which tastes like plastic to me, anyhow).
I lost most of my weight by cutting out all those sugary-starchy additives one eats when eating out -- I began making my own lunches for work, and Voila! The work "healthy choices" -- simply were NOT. All they did was mimimize fats -- and added starches and sugars (instead of herbs and spices) to replace the fats -- and of COURSE that's not going to work.
Neither. I eat at the lower end of my carb range, and the higher end of my fat range, but that is just because I try to eat in the middle of my protein range and that is how the numbers turn out. I lost most of my weight by just reducing portion sizes and eating less junk!
I lost weight by eating the good carbs like the ones in whole grains fruits and veggies. I do eat 1 whole grain a day and get the rest from my fruits and veggies. I do that to regulate my blood sugar as I have hypoglycemia. I eat around my sparks recomended fats. I use peanut butter as a fat and protein.
Fitness Minutes: (48,676)
5,092 11/24/12 9:42 P
"smarter carb and smarter fat" - good point, I like that!
Fitness Minutes: (16,232)
385 11/24/12 9:15 P
Sorry OP but your question is too vague. "Low" in relation to what? To what you ate before? To what a nutritionist tells you? To what Spark tracker suggests? And what kindof carb are we talking about...only refined sugars? What about good fats found in nuts and fish?
I can tell you this...I'm lower carb AND lower fat than what got me to 240 lbs. But not by much...it would be more accurate to say smarter carb and smarter fat.
11/24/12 9:10 P
I just try to stay in my spark ranges. Some on here may be shocked by the amount of fat and carbs that I do consume
Fitness Minutes: (20,400)
2,704 11/24/12 7:23 P
Neither. I went from 152 to 122 by limiting my calories and finding a balance of nutrients.
Fitness Minutes: (48,676)
5,092 11/24/12 6:15 P
Neither. I stick with SP's recommendations. A balanced diet is the key to success.
Fitness Minutes: (120)
11/24/12 4:54 P
Neither one. I try to stick to the guidelines SP provides, but that doesn't always happen. I have found that I do better on a higher protein diet, but I also eat a lot of pasta meals, especially when it's colder out. My SP range is 168-299 for carbs, and I never get anywhere near the top end of that range. I honestly don't pay attention to fat but it usually falls within my range unless I'm eating out.
Fitness Minutes: (41,531)
27,148 11/24/12 4:19 P
I'm not on either. I eat around the SP recommended ranges, but not exactly.
Protein/Carbs/Fats are all important for our health. Low fat CAN contribute to constipation and a myriad of other issues. Low carbs (glucose) (as in very low) CAN contribute to damage to our organs (e.g. kidneys) and lack of appropriate nutrition to our brain.
11/24/12 3:50 P
I use the SP guidelines which are about 30% fat. Anything less than 20% is risky for brain function, I have read, but I'm sure someone would dispute that.
As for low carb, that is a moveable feast. What is low for one is high for another. SP says 50% carb. As a runner I should aim closer to 60% carb. Low carbers say 20%-40%.
I think that the concept of eating 'clean' is a better method than getting too stuck on percentages. As close to nature as possible, or as Michael Pollan (Omnivores Dilemma) says, Eat food. Not too much. Mostly vegetable. He describes food as something your grandmother could identify and know how to prepare. Or as Lou Schuler (New Rules of Lifting) says, Three degrees from nature - if you need more than 3 degrees to get the food you are about to eat from nature to your plate than it isn't 'clean'.
There is no right way to eat, except to eat which we all do everyday. SP guidelines are as good as any and don't stray too far into extremes. I don't think eating should be extreme.
But my two cents only. Any probably not even worth $0.02!
Fitness Minutes: (100)
11/24/12 2:25 P
Please tell sp which one are you on and if you tried both and your results