Yup, just track calories accurately unlike basically anyone who says it doesn't work.
The laws of thermodynamics don't lie.
Low carb works for many because carbs are often where their worst food habits reside. Not because it is some sort of magical trick.
Typical American carbs = easy to eat a ton of with lot of calories, but don't make you feel full. No wonder cutting them out makes weight loss easier.
So this comes up all the time in these discussions. Problem is, it doesn't go far enough, to answering some basic questions.
Like WHY they ate too much. What was happening with hunger response. Why these people didn't feel satiated, why they go for certain foods more than others, why it's so hard to break their cycle.
And it's doubly weird when it comes up alongside discussions of Taubes and the famous New Yorker article, since they guy is a
physicist.
The reason Atkins was on to something was simple; people were having hormonal imbalance from specific types of food, not only the calories they were ingesting. So it's NOT just CICO. And that's why I dislike the frame, because it's super old, and goes to a simplistic idea of "these people have no discipline".
There are totally impoverished populations that have high rates of obesity. How is that possible if it's purely CICO?
(also, these drive by responses that are like "simple, I ate carbs, I'm not weak, easy, simple for me" has to be the dietary equivalent of "fuck you, got mine". helps no one.)
entremet said:
Combination of factors, like everything else. The level of processed vs whole grains. Portion size. Differences in population. There are no simple answers in nutrition.
People point to places like Italy and say, see they eat a lot of carbs. You know what's practically unknown in Italy? potato chips. There's just more to these stories.