Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why not combine low carb and low fat into one diet?
It's not that hard to do. I don't eat much beef or cheese, and stick to low-fat dairy products like Greek yogurt (can't stand the no-fat yogurts!). Most of the fat I get in a day comes from the olive oil on salads, in addition to the fats in dairy, fish and chicken or turkey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foreverking
Once again, Im a man, I wouldnt eat any of that stuff.
Real men eat quiche! Without the crust, of course ...
You do realize you're talking to someone who has had good success on keto diets, right?
Thanks. I've not had a chance to wade through all of those links, but I will.
I'm glad you had success on Keto diets as have I, so we have something in common.
Even if you disagree with Taubes, at least you acknowledge that keto diets are effective for losing weight. I note your blogger in your first link also acknowledges as much.
Forever king, now you're just making stuff up for the sake of arguing.
You said
Quote:
the only thing I enjoyed about a low carb diet was that I could eat a juicy steak...covered in cheese if I wanted
And so I informed you that you COULD eat that steak (filet mignon is steak, maybe you weren't aware of that?) with not only cheese, but with sauteed mushrooms as well.
AND you could have hot-pepper-grilled vegetables on a spear (a very manly mannish kind of side-dish)
AND you could have bread
AND you could have green beans (women eat squash, men eat green beans - what, you didn't get the memo?)
And now you're saying you wouldn't eat ANY of that stuff.
Make up your mind dood. Either you would eat a steak and miss it if you couldn't eat fat (which is ridiculous since a 4-ounce filet mignon isn't nearly as fatty as a caesar salad with chicken)...
or you wouldn't eat a steak, and shouldn't have mentioned that you'd miss it.
For me, even 150 is low-carb. I'm not wildly active, but I do work out, I'm only 27, I'm a man, and I do live car-free in a major city, so I'm also walking at least a couple miles a day. But standard recommendations for me would be something like 400 grams of carbs, which is just unnecessary. Yeah, I could handle it without putting on a ton of weight, but why do something "just to handle it," when your system runs better in every respect on less than half that?
Back when I was always hungry, 400 grams of carbs sounded great. Now that I eat only at meal times, it would actually be unpleasant to ingest that many carbs (exception: beer). I mean, a piece of toast at breakfast, a small bowl of pasta at lunch, a baked potato at dinner, and a few random vegetables at lunch and dinner -- what is that, 120, 130 grams of carbs? I'm eating meat with the baked potato, so why the hell would I want two baked potatoes, you know? At least once a week I order a burger and fries in a bar, I always finish the whole burger and about 1/3 of the fries -- I don't want any more, I'm sitting there thinking "who the hell needs this many fries?" even though I used to be the one finishing them.
This is an underrated difference between Americans and Europeans, IMO. People don't eat 175g of carbs in pasta for dinner because "they had a long day" or because "they earned it on the treadmill" in Europe. Europeans see a "food coma" as something to avoid, not a reward for a hardworking day. Those are American things, it's the real reason we're fat, not processed foods, which play a role but also exist virtually everywhere in the world in this day and age.
But what you do expect, when you have a government telling you to eat 6-11 daily servings of starch alone, which doesn't count vegetables (like carrots, which are nutritious but still sugar/carbs), fruits (pure sugar, and fructose, to boot), and of course, added sugar, which people who don't know how to eat add to virtually everything (sugar in spaghetti sauce? your nonna would have slapped you).
You can hardly eat this much carbohydrate just at meals (without falling asleep, anyway), so you snack. And that's when your body starts losing its timing, and then really bad things happen. Some people say carbs aren't the problem -- ok, how about "carbs on top of carbs on top of carbs," is that a better description?
When I'm in weight-loss mode, I eat no more than 50 grams of carbs a day.
If I'm just maintaining, I try to eat more grams of protein than carbs. Unless I'm eating a rare bowl of pasta with an even more rare bowl of ice cream for dessert, I don't often eat more than 100 grams of carbs a day. One meal a day may have substantial carbs in it -- a sandwich, a bowl of oatmeal, that bowl of pasta -- but the others will not.
Rice, pasta, bread -- doesn't satisfy me and keep me full, and the white varieties especially are empty calories, so what's the point?
Quote:
(sugar in spaghetti sauce? your nonna would have slapped you)
Lower fat than most cuts of beef. It isn't too bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
