Newbie with loads of questions

MzTeequal

Hi all! I'm new to MFP and looking to start LCHF. I've been dipping in and out of researching it for about a year, my bf is a devout member of the Taubes club. Though I am not as sold as he is, I am willing to give this a go. It is particularly hard from me because my traditional diet is typically carb rich (love my plantains!) so I struggle with what to eat as I don't drink coffee or milk, or eat avocados, cream cheese, yoghurt, sour cream or mayonnaise which seem to be staples in LCHF people's diets.

A bit of background, I'm 24 (until Jan 31st), about 5ft 4 or 5 and currently weighing 82kg. My goal is to weigh roughly 65kg by the end of the year and or fit comfortably in UK size 10/12 clothes by losing 2kgs a month initially. My first goal is to be 70kgs by July so IF I get called to the bar I'm not looking like a whale in my pictures.

With that in mind, I have a few questions (after spending hours reading threads in this group and the keto group)
(1) The calorie conundrum.
My bf and quite a few on the boards say calories don't matter. Coming from the mainstream way of thinking, this is difficult for me to comprehend. Isn't it more of that on LCHF you end up eating less because you are more satiated from the amount of fat and protein you are eating? The reason I'm asking is because I started out on the general forum and in exploring the CICO model calculated my TDEE and even using the keto calculator this group seems to favour at ankerl.com, I am meant to be eating about 1500 calories a day (rounded up from 1459) which I feel is a bit on the low side? So do I just "eat until I feel full" or try and stick to the calories per day suggested? The issue I have with the "eat until I feel full" way of thinking is what if I overeat? Isn't that how I got here in the first place?

(2) Exercise:
My TDEE and suggested calorie intake are based on a sedentary lifestyle. When do I recalculate them? I am planning on going all in when it comes to exercise (which according to many LCHF-ers doesn't matter????) by doing the C25K, TurboFire, 3 gym classes a week and NROLFW (later switching to Strong Curves on completion).

(i) does it sound like too much? I lost some weight last year doing C25K for about two months even though I made it a month into the programme due to repeating weeks. My 3 gym classes will be strength based eg kettlebells class. Initially my plan looked something like this-

Monday morning: C25K, gym class, lift
Monday evening: TurboFire
Tuesday: TurboFire only
Wednesday: Repeat Monday
Thurs: Repeat Tues
etc.

Now I'm thinking to run on days I DON'T lift? Help. This is so confusing lol

(ii) will I be able to exercise? I'm reading a lot about lack of energy in the beginning, keto flu etc. On this basis I'm thinking of delaying exercise until February?

(iii) should I eat back the calories burned? I have a Polar FT7 so I guess I know about how much I burn per workout. I am planning on burning about 500 cals minimum on my very active days so thought I should eat half back? Won't NOT eating the calories back put me in starvation mode? (on TurboFire Fire55 I think, I burned about 550 calories so add running, plus lifting.. )

(3) The diet itself
I appreciate this is a lifestyle change. That being said, I don't plan on being at 20g of carbs for ever. I love cake too much for that haha. My bf says I need to be on the diet for at least 6 months. Ok. However, info on how to reintroduce carbs would be helpful. I'm reading a lot about people putting on a bunch of weight once carbs are added again? Also, snacks. What to snack on? I'm talking store bought/easy grab snacks. Hummus is meant to be bad? No carrots? I love fruit and am quite sad to be losing them. When can I start eating them again? Sometimes I NEED a sugar fix and eat Hartley's 10 calorie jelly pots. Are they really that harmful? According to my bf I'm incredibly insulin insensitive as a result of my eating habits and even the smallest amount of sugar can stimulate enough of an insulin spike to prevent me from losing weight. Even the one Sweetex I put in my tea?! In case you can't tell, I'm REALLY struggling with this carb/sugar ban. I also struggle with fat sources. I already fry bacon and sausages in butter. Other sources? And how much do I need to be eating? I'm aiming for 110g of protein based on the calculator's figures. Just read a post that I should be eating more until I'm keto adapted and THEN drop to 110g?

Phew! Thank you for reading. I had a whole bunch of questions but they disappeared as I began typing, typical. Any help on the above questions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

deansdad101

MzTeequal wrote: »

Hi all! I'm new to MFP and looking to start LCHF. I've been dipping in and out of researching it for about a year, my bf is a devout member of the Taubes club. Though I am not as sold as he is, I am willing to give this a go. It is particularly hard from me because my traditional diet is typically carb rich (love my plantains!) so I struggle with what to eat as I don't drink coffee or milk, or eat avocados, cream cheese, yoghurt, sour cream or mayonnaise which seem to be staples in LCHF people's diets.

A bit of background, I'm 24 (until Jan 31st), about 5ft 4 or 5 and currently weighing 82kg. My goal is to weigh roughly 65kg by the end of the year and or fit comfortably in UK size 10/12 clothes by losing 2kgs a month initially. My first goal is to be 70kgs by July so IF I get called to the bar I'm not looking like a whale in my pictures.

With that in mind, I have a few questions (after spending hours reading threads in this group and the keto group)
(1) The calorie conundrum.
My bf and quite a few on the boards say calories don't matter. Coming from the mainstream way of thinking, this is difficult for me to comprehend. Isn't it more of that on LCHF you end up eating less because you are more satiated from the amount of fat and protein you are eating? The reason I'm asking is because I started out on the general forum and in exploring the CICO model calculated my TDEE and even using the keto calculator this group seems to favour at ankerl.com, I am meant to be eating about 1500 calories a day (rounded up from 1459) which I feel is a bit on the low side? So do I just "eat until I feel full" or try and stick to the calories per day suggested? The issue I have with the "eat until I feel full" way of thinking is what if I overeat? Isn't that how I got here in the first place?

(2) Exercise:
My <snip> completion).

(i) does it sound like too much? <snip>
etc.[/center]
Now I'm thinking to run on days I DON'T lift? Help. This is so confusing lol

(ii) will I be able to exercise? I'm reading a lot about lack of energy in the beginning, keto flu etc. On this basis I'm thinking of delaying exercise until February?

(iii) should I eat back the calories burned? <snip>

(3) The diet itself
I appreciate this is a lifestyle change. <snip>

Phew! Thank you for reading. I had a whole bunch of questions but they disappeared as I began typing, typical. Any help on the above questions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

MzT;

Welcome to LCD - we're glad you are here!

Let's take your Q's a couple at a time.

Intro) - Many of those starting out on LCHF come with most of the same "concerns" (weigh loss goals, love my carbs, staple foods, etc), so while I don't like to give the impression that it's "easy" (it's not, but it IS "doable"), it should come as at least somewhat comforting to know that others have gone before (as had your BF) and can help you along the way with what "worked" for them.

2kg/month, is a "reasonable" and realistic target - some average higher, some (but not too many) lower, most believe that "less is more" in that a slower loss rate is better in the long run (for a variety of reasons).

I'd argue that you not focus solely on weight loss as your "primary" motivation but rather the "big picture" which includes the major, long term health benefits. The weight loss will come, your goal is a great one, and it will all come together once you are able to fit all the "pieces" into the "puzzle".

It can seem overwhelming at first (although you have the benefit of your BF's experience and that can be an amazing assist as can the advice and support available here.

It's likely that your initial loss rate might exceed the 2kg - it's normal, but usually not sustainable over the long haul and not helpful to focus too much on the short term (days) changes - focus on the longer term (per week or per month).

1) "Calories don't matter...." - As you've noted, a goodly number of folks (many of whom I respect a great deal) do repeat the "cals don't matter" thing - I'm not one of them.

Taken in the context that I believe they mean it, I "can" agree but worry that it's a misleading (not intentionally, but that is the result), or at least, a source of unnecessary confusion - especially for those first starting out.

If it's intended to mean that they don't "matter" because of the satiety effects of LCHF - I agree. If it's used in the context of "don't obsess over a number" - there too, I agree as I do if it's meant to imply that while the CICO folks consider cals the holy grail and all that matters, while LCHF'ers focus more on "quality" and quantity of individual macros - I'm on board.

But that doesn't mean that the "don't matter" - just that they need to be put in proper perspective and while you can't totally ignore the cal count, it will sort of "naturally" become less and less important as time goes by.

They DO matter, if for no other reason than that accurate tracking can play a large role in determining one's success (especially when it comes to "fine tuning" the diet).
The more accurate your data (daily cals in and individual macro ratios) "matters" and it's just not possible to calculate ratios without knowing total cals in, so yes, IMO they "matter".

They "matter" though more as "reference" than as a hard and fast "absolute limit".
The various "calculators" are all based on one of the common algorithms, none of which are very accurate and all of which have so many variables as to be "guesstimates" at best.

So I really don't think it matters a hoot which one you use, pick one, use the result as a "starting point", and consider that whatever the "number" is - it's ONLY a reference. You'll use that number (and change it as you go along) only for what it's worth - a VERY "rough" estimate.

If your calculator says 1500kcal and you are consistently losing at a comfortable rate (and you are accurately tracking) - that's great, leave it alone. If you're not - adjust it. It matters not if the 1500 is exactly the "right" number, only that you eventually find the right "balance" of carbs, proteins, and fats in the right quantities, for YOU.

2) Exercise - most "experts" advise that, at least in the beginning, you limit exercise to "very light" levels (walking). Becoming adjusted (or "adapted") to the LCHF diet involves a number of fairly significant modifications to your metabolic system and body in general. You simply don't need to add more than necessary.

That, combined with the fact that it's well documented "settled science" that exercise plays almost no role in weight loss. That's NOT to say that exercise doesn't "matter" - it DOES, but for overall health and wellness, NOT for weight loss. So there will be plenty of time down the road to address the exercise issue, it's just that now is not the time.

For now, enjoy a walk when you can and want to but set the rest aside for a month or two and focus on diet.

When you do reintroduce exercise, I doubt that "adding back exercise cals..." will even be a question you will have at that point. By then, your body will be telling you when and how much to eat and whatever "number" any exercise calculator (or gizmo) comes up with will be irrelevant.

All of the calculators, gizmos, charts, etc are notoriously errant to the point that it's almost laughable. For some, counting their steps or seeing the number on the lcd display looks "official" and is motivational and if used for that purpose and it "works" for you, fine - otherwise, IMO it's a toy and most likely one that will end up on the lawn with a "free to a good home" sign.

3) As to the "diet" itself and various food items - that's a "book" in itself, the short version of which goes something like this:

Yes, you will have to make changes, and yes you will have to significantly cut (if not eliminate completely) some of the things that you love - there's no "easy" way to say it. But if you keep in mind the fact that it's precisely those foods that have created the "problem" in the first place, and that reducing or eliminating them WILL make you lighter and (even more importantly) healthier by reducing the risks of very serious health issues in the future, it's just a matter of which "matters more" to you.

No it's not 'easy" and yes it's going to require some sacrifices (and developing some new "tastes" and "favs", but YOU are worth it - so try to think of it not as a "sacrifice" but rather a "new day and a new you".

The most commonly heard comments go something along the lines of "...that wasn't so bad, I NEVER would have thought a month ago that I could LIVE without..... - but I DID and not only that, I feel SO MUCH better for having done it!"

Dragonwolf

First -- stop. Breathe. Eat. You're way overthinking it, I think. Your questions are certainly relevant, but you appear to be diving head-first into the deep end, without learning to swim first.

So, start with this:

Set your macros to your goals. Carbs to 20g (or your goal amount), protein to about 100g (or you can use the keto calculator to determine your range), fill the rest in with fat. You can use MFP's or the keto calculator's calorie number for now, but your hunger levels should (by and large) trump that number.

For the first couple of weeks, don't try to restrict calories. Eat until you're full and fill up on good fats from whatever sources you enjoy. The transition is rough on the body and the compounded stress between it and calorie restriction is often overwhelming for newbies. Once you get past the transition period, you can tweak your intake if needed.

If you do nothing else, just do the above, and you'll very likely have a fair amount of success.

Dragonwolf

Now, to answer your questions directly:

My bf and quite a few on the boards say calories don't matter. Coming from the mainstream way of thinking, this is difficult for me to comprehend. Isn't it more of that on LCHF you end up eating less because you are more satiated from the amount of fat and protein you are eating?

Calories do matter, but they are not the be-all, end-all of weight or health like the CICO crowd would have you believe. Simply put, we are not a bomb calorimeter (the tool used to determine the calorie level in a given food item). We are a complex machine, and our hormones will affect how efficiently we process and store the food we eat and how efficiently we utilize the fat stores we have. In short, CICO is a gross oversimplification.

Now, with a very few exceptions, you can't go and eat ten thousand Calories a day, every day for a month and not expect to gain weight if you're sitting on your butt all day. Likewise, you can't live on 500 Calories a day as a highly active person and not expect to destroy your adrenals and crash and burn. You do need to make sure you're keeping within a sane range, but generally, it's to ensure you're getting enough calories to stay healthy, because LCHF is very satiating and you will generally find that you'll naturally restrict your calories.

I am meant to be eating about 1500 calories a day (rounded up from 1459) which I feel is a bit on the low side? So do I just "eat until I feel full" or try and stick to the calories per day suggested? The issue I have with the "eat until I feel full" way of thinking is what if I overeat? Isn't that how I got here in the first place?

It may be a bit on the low side, but you're also on the smaller end of the height scale (to compare, I'm 5'9" and MFP puts me at 1920).

That said, odds are, you won't overeat when you eat to satiety and keep your carbs down. Fat and protein, especially in combination, is very satiating. So, despite being more calories per gram, you will naturally find yourself full after a smaller volume of food. After as little as two weeks, you'll find that you can actually trust your hunger signals better than you did on a high carb diet. Additionally, fat is not as "efficient" a fuel as sugar, in the sense that it takes more energy to break down fat into a usable form (as opposed to glucose, which is dumped directly into the blood and used without any processing). This means that when your diet is composed almost entirely of fat, you basically add 200-500 calories to your TDEE (depending on where you're starting), which gives you an even larger margin of error than standard USDA style CICO.

If you still have doubts (which you probably do), then after the initial 1-2 weeks (the adjustment period), then just track your food. Don't try to restrict. Just eat until you're full and log what you've eaten for informational purposes. Do that for at least a week, or better yet, two weeks. Then look at your caloric intake and see where it falls. Also, check your weight at the start and end of that two weeks and see where your weight is. The results might surprise you.

My TDEE and suggested calorie intake are based on a sedentary lifestyle. When do I recalculate them? I am planning on going all in when it comes to exercise (which according to many LCHF-ers doesn't matter????) by doing the C25K, TurboFire, 3 gym classes a week and NROLFW (later switching to Strong Curves on completion).

Recalculate your goals every 10% of weight or so, that way you can make sure you're still on track.

As for "eating back" calories -- are you hungry? If yes, then eat some. If no, then don't worry about it (as long as you're consuming enough to stay healthy, 1200 "gross" is a good minimum calorie goal).

As for exercise -- you're doing a lot, even by non-LCHF standards. If you like C25K-esque cardio, then do it, but it's not required for losing weight (and can actually run counter to weight loss goals).

At most, pick two activities -- a cardio (if you like it), and a strength (either the kettlebell gym classes or New Rules/Strong Curves) -- and do those on alternating days. On day 7, rest completely. Rest is just as important, if not more important, than workout days. If you can't keep up with that program, then drop the cardio. Strength training is far better for weight loss than cardio (especially steady state cardio), in part because it encourages the retention and growth of lean mass.

When it comes to exercise, more is not better.

will I be able to exercise? I'm reading a lot about lack of energy in the beginning, keto flu etc. On this basis I'm thinking of delaying exercise until February?

You certainly will be able to exercise! It does take a little bit of time to adjust to the diet, though. The general recommendation is to spend the first month and get your diet in order, as that is 95% of weight loss and health. It also takes some time for the body to build the "equipment" necessary to burn fat as a primary fuel source. This takes energy and work to do, so while it may feel like you're not doing anything, your body is hard at work. Don't discount that.

February would be a good time to start adding in exercise. Don't jump into the deep end, though. Starting exercise on LCHF is kind of like a runner switching from traditional to minimalist shoes -- if you try to do what you did with the old style, you're liable to do more harm than good to yourself. Instead, start out slow and work your way up as your body gets used to the new way of working.

However, info on how to reintroduce carbs would be helpful. I'm reading a lot about people putting on a bunch of weight once carbs are added again?

Cross that bridge when you get there. LCHF brings a number of fundamental changes to your body. You may find that 6 months from now, you don't want to add the carbs (especially the refined ones) back in.

That said, both the initial drastic weight drop in the beginning and the immediate weight gain when someone puts carbs back in their diet is from water weight. When you go LCHF, you deplete your stores of glycogen and its associated water storage, and you maintain a lower level of both. When you "carb up" you refill those stores. This can be as much as 10lbs (~5kg), so if you do ultimately decide to go back to a higher carb way of eating, make sure to remember that.

Also, snacks. What to snack on? I'm talking store bought/easy grab snacks.

Good luck with that. I don't know about your area, but in the US, the vast majority of store bought snacks are sugar-filled or carby by nature. That said, there are a number you can make ahead of time and have available to grab and go -- jerky, hard boiled eggs, fat bombs, string cheese, etc. However, most people find they don't need snacks on LCHF. Again, you're simply not hungry every couple of hours. In fact, a large portion of people find they need only eat one or two larger meals per day.

Hummus is meant to be bad? No carrots? I love fruit and am quite sad to be losing them.

Hummus is carby, so it doesn't really fit into this diet. You can eat some carrots, but they are starchy vegetables, so go easy on them. Fruit is generally sugar-filled, but berries and cream are a common LCHF treat. Instead, look to the above-ground vegetables, which will supply you with all the nutrients of fruits, without the carb/sugar load.

Sometimes I NEED a sugar fix and eat Hartley's 10 calorie jelly pots. Are they really that harmful? According to my bf I'm incredibly insulin insensitive as a result of my eating habits and even the smallest amount of sugar can stimulate enough of an insulin spike to prevent me from losing weight.

No, you don't need sugar and odds are, that craving is a result of your high carb way of eating. You'll find this "need" for a sugar fix will go away as you follow the LCHF way of eating.

Have you had trouble losing weight, or have you been tested for diabetes or checked your blood sugar, and have it shown that you have or are at risk for diabetes, or have you experienced other symptoms of insulin resistance or poor glucose tolerance? Then yes, that sugar is harmful. If you are, in fact, insulin resistant, then it is harder for the body to process glucose, which means when you eat carbs, your blood sugar raises higher and stays elevated for longer as your body works to deal with it. If your blood sugar goes above 120mg/dl then it is causing damage to your body and that damage is proportional to how far over and for how long it is above 120mg/dl.

Even the one Sweetex I put in my tea?!

Maybe, maybe not. Artificial sweeteners are said to not produce the same insulin spike that sugar does, but many people find that untrue. The only way to tell for sure is to test your blood sugar before and after drinking tea sweetened with Sweetex and comparing it to tests done with sugar-sweetened tea.

Additionally, some people find that artificial sweeteners maintain or increase their craving for sugar. Given your issues with giving up sugar, I'd say drop all artificial sweeteners for the first month, too, then bring them back in and see how they affect you. Otherwise, you may be sabotaging yourself.

In case you can't tell, I'm REALLY struggling with this carb/sugar ban.

This says to me that you may be addicted to sugar. Sugar (and by extension, carbs in general) contains opioid compounds that can bind to the opiate receptors in our bodies. It stimulates the "pleasure centers" of our brains. For some people, this leads to addiction -- yes, not unlike nicotine, heroin, or morphine. I recommend cutting out all forms of sugar (and sweeteners) for at least a month, even if you don't ultimately choose to remain on LCHF.

I also struggle with fat sources. I already fry bacon and sausages in butter. Other sources? And how much do I need to be eating? I'm aiming for 110g of protein based on the calculator's figures. Just read a post that I should be eating more until I'm keto adapted and THEN drop to 110g?

Eat enough protein to meet your protein goals, and stay under your carb goal. Fill the rest in with fat. How much that is will depend entirely on how much you're eating. This will take a shift in thinking -- base your meals around a fatty cut of meat instead of vegetables or starches. Don't think too hard about the precise number, especially right now. Just eat fatty stuff and the numbers will generally fall into place.

As for sources, there are numerous:

butter
coconut oil (don't be afraid of saturated fats, and don't be afraid to eat it straight if the mood strikes)
fatty meats (75/25 hamburger, lamb, cuts with fat still on them, etc)
fatty dressings (oil and vinegar dressing, etc)
heavy cream (watch out for additives)
cheese (not just cream cheese, but cheddar and whatnot)
nuts/nut butters (watch out for added sugars)
fat bombs (made with your favorite fats)
butter/bulletproof tea
bacon grease
lard/tallow/schmaltz
bone marrow (ever get the bone-in steak with the marrow? Use it on top of the steak instead of butter, it's phenomenal)
egg yolks (whole eggs are good, too, but the yolks are the highest fat part, so if you're trying to get more fat in, favor the yolks)
fatty fish

Cook everything in a fat, don't drain the ground meat unless you have to, save drippings for sauces and whatnot, top veggies and leaner meats with a fat, buy full-fat everything, eat the fat strip on the meat if you can (this may take a while to work up to if you're used to low fat, that fat strip is very rich).

Here's a nifty cheat sheet -- http://www.ruled.me/ketogenic-diet-low-carb-cheat-sheet/

FIT_Goat

---- CALORIES ----
I am a calories don't matter bigot. This is not to say that you don't have to consume fewer calories than you expend, if you hope to lose weight. That is simply a fact. You also have to exhale more carbon atoms than the amount of carbon atoms you consume through food, if you want to lose weight. But, you're not going to find anyone trying to tell you to measure your carbon atom intake and output.

I can understand the apprehension about not counting calories at first. It's why my advice is usually to track calories, but not restrict them. At least, for the first few weeks. At the end of each week, average your daily calories and see what you're naturally hitting. Some days I tend to eat a lot, but those are compensated for by days that I naturally eat less. You may find that you're not too far off your goal anyway. You'll probably end up losing weight even though some days you may have relatively high calories. If, on the other hand, you're not losing weight (or you're gaining) and the calorie average is fairly high, you may need to be more careful and monitor the amount more closely.

Anyway, I am a fan of tracking. I am not a fan of arbitrary restrictions based on formulas which are just estimates. Track what, and how much, you eat while you are eating until you're full. Do that for a little while to get a baseline. Compare your results to your desired results. Adjust. You may find that you lose 0.4 kg a week without restricting your calories. It may not be the 0.5 kg you wanted as a goal, but now you know how little tweaking you'll actually have to do. It should be noted, women typically claim they need to track calories more closely than men. So, if you find you're not getting the results you desire, then you may just be someone who needs to be a little more careful watching the calories in.

---- EXERCISE ----
This stuff is great for health, but not very effective for weight loss. You should do as much as you want. At the start, your endurance and performance will be lower than usual. It doesn't mean you need to stop, just do what you can and don't be upset that it's not your normal amount. After you adapt, you will get back to where you were.

I wouldn't bother to eat back the calories, mainly because I don't bother to count the calories anyway. If you're hungrier than normal after exercise, eat a little extra. Personally, I find that I am not hungry that day, but I am hungry the next. So, I'll end up eating more than usual the day after a run than the day of a run. If you're losing weight faster than you'd like, or you're hungrier than you like, eat back some of the calories burned from exercise. If you're not, don't. There's no risk of starvation mode. That's just not a thing until you're at very low body fat percentages.

---- DIET ----
Count your carbs and stick to that limit. In general, prefer your carbs to come from leafy green veggies, not sugar or sweets. Do not make exceptions right at the start. People tend to find the exceptions they make are the reasons they end up stalling. Making them at the start is a good way to think this doesn't work at all. Also, avoid the "low-carb treats" like Atkins bars and such, at the start. Experiment with them once you know what normal is like for you. My sister-in-law didn't lose a pound eating low-carb for over a month. She was having a "Low Net Carb Protein Bar" (brand name intentionally left out because they're all the same) each morning for breakfast. When she replaced that with scrambled eggs with some cheese (same amount of calories), she started losing weight right away.

I stand by the 150g of protein for the first 3 weeks statement. Although the science isn't settled and that number is based on nitrogen losses (which there's some doubt as to how accurate those are for muscle loss), it is certainly not going to hurt you and it may benefit you. If you're aiming for 1500 calories a day then your macros would be something like the below. The fat would be give or take a little and the protein should be close. The carbs should not exceed 20 grams.

Carb: 20 grams
Protein: 150 grams
Fat: 91 grams

Once you adapt, if you are staying at the same calories:

Carb: 20 grams
Protein: 110 grams (or lower depending on lean body mass... this seems high for a woman)
Fat: 110 grams

Now, I am not concerned about protein. I find it doesn't effect me negatively. I aim higher than most would recommend. My protein range is between 81g (1.3 g/kg) and 134g (2.2 g/kg) based on lean body mass estimations. I stick to the high end of that and often even go over. If you're more sensitive to the insulin effects of protein, you may find that you do better towards the 1.3 g/kg of lean body mass end of the scale. It's all about personal response. This is something you play around with after you adapt though. My current estimates for you would be protein between 68 grams and 115 grams a day (based on very rough bf% estimations from height, weight, age, gender).

I hope that's not too confusing. There's different ways of doing things. This just happens to be my way.

Dragonwolf

Oh, also, to address the cravings and whatnot:

I used to be a sugar-holic, too. There was a point in time where I could polish off an entire package of Oreo cookies in a sitting, by myself. (Ugh.) Very large milkshakes were a common appearance in our house, as were large pizzas (one for each my husband and I, because we weren't full after eating 5 pieces). Don't judge me, I didn't know better at the time, and I paid dearly for it.

I was like a zombie when someone at the office brought in donuts or pastries, or even with the perpetual bowl of chocolate at my last office. I'd eat one, then go back for seconds or thirds, even if I wasn't all that hungry. I was driven to keep eating it. Resisting that kind of temptation was about like a smoker trying to resist going out for a smoke, and I'd end up distracted by it. No amount of "moderation" (in the "you can have one, but no more") worked for me -- it still doesn't really work well for me (though it is quite a bit better than it used to be).

Then I found LCHF. I wasn't losing weight on the USDA way of eating, and the main-forum definition of "moderation" wasn't working for me. I felt like I was starving while trying to lose weight and not getting anywhere, and was just in general miserable. So I gave this LCHF thing a try (by way of Paleo).

Now? I can pass on those donuts, bagels, pastries, etc. entirely. I have no desire for them -- as long as I abstain completely. If I eat one, the odds are good that they'll trigger me and I'll find myself back in that craving for more. It's not a fun place to be, and it sabotages my goals. So I pass on them entirely most days. They're just not worth it.

That's fine by me, too, because I no longer crave them. In fact, I just got back from four days at my mom's, where there was a fair bit of sugar and cheap staple food to be had (my mom's rather poor, so the foods she gets includes a lot of grain and corn-based filler or sugar; and it's the holidays and I come from a family of bakers). You know what I craved when I got back and what I ordered when I went out to eat Monday night?

Grilled chicken club without the bun, topped with cheese, bacon, lettuce, tomato, and mayo, with a side salad with ranch dressing.

Heaven

on

a

plate.

I kid you not. I basically felt like I'd just gotten over being sick or something and wanted something to make me feel good, like actually and truly good. Not "drugged up high" kind of good that one gets from an endorphin rush. I wanted fat. I wanted protein. I wanted non-starchy vegetables.

I got that in that meal. 46g of fat, 49g of protein, 12g carbs (thereabouts). A little protein-heavy (and a little carby for a lower carb goal, but mine's 50g, so it fit), but I was okay with that, because it was what I wanted, and I'd gotten my fats from elsewhere that day, and this meal rounded my day out nicely.

When was the last time you could say you wanted something highly, naturally nutritious? I don't know about you, but until I went LCHF, I didn't have such kinds of desires. When I craved something, it was generally the garbage foods -- pizza, ice cream, cookies. Anything else, I "wanted" in the sense that I knew I "should" eat it (it's "meal food") and that item sounded good compared to the other options.

GaleHawkins

DW i can relate. There seemed to no limit on the carbs I could poke into my face.

Going cold turkey was the only way I could break free. I thought I was going to die but after two weeks the cravings left.

I finally feel free with the LCHF eating lifestyle. Being down to 215 (20 year low) from 250 lets me know it is working. Not going hungry yet losing close to a pound a week is a new experience for me.

deansdad101

Personally, I think the "smoking" analogy is a PERFECT one to the "just one little cheat can't hurt", carbs one.

Whether one defines either (or both) as an "addiction" (by strict interpretation of the medical/scientific definition) is, IMO, a smokescreen (pun not intended) that contributes nothing to the discussion but confusion and the all too frequently employed, "red-herring".

In fact, the physiological effects of each ARE quite similar.
Over simplified to the max but essentially comes down to the fact that there really IS an impulse created in the brain that "craves" what it has been denied - be it a cigarette or a sugar and that "craving" is reignited with "just one puff" or "just a "little" ice cream.

The "craving" CAN (as many have shown), be overcome with time but it can be MUCH more easily returned to "square one" with just one little "cheat" - undoing the hard work of "beating it back". There are "exceptions", of course, but the preponderance of the evidence would suggest that they are in the significant minority.

The number of "reformed" smokers who have successfully managed a "just one cig a day" cig "reload", can be counted on one hand.

So too, I would argue, can the number of those who can successfully "reintroduce" just a "few little cheats" be tabulated without the need for a computer or calculator. We see the anecdotal reports of those who are able to keep the monster in the cage but never those of the group that couldn't and disappear from our ranks as a result.

That first "sugar cookie" or "c-stick", opens the door and the next one effectively "undoes" what is unquestionably an arduous process to "break" the habit (in either case).

How can that possibly be "worth it"? (even if it's not a "certainty" that it will in YOUR case, or that you have convinced yourself (generic "you") that you are the ONE exception in a million that actually CAN "power through").

Whether one buys into the "willpower" litany or not (or simply uses that as a convenient "excuse" to sidetrack the discussion) - call it what you will but it really is as simple as going "cold turkey" just making up one's mind that "I CAN do this and I'm doing it for ME". Whether one reaches cold turkey "abstinence" in one jump or via gradual reduction over time, might not be the technical definition of "cold turkey" but to me, matters not. It's "getting there" rather than "how" one gets there that matters more (to me).

"Simple" - not "easy" and no amount of "window dressing" (THIS bar/snack/whatever, is "ok" because "x" said it is and it contains "y" NOT "z" and if it didn't, we wouldn't sell it) - can change what the body is "hard-wired" to do.

It's the basic "problem" I have with Atkins (or others) who have, to my way of thinking, "sold out" on the science in favor of playing on what was "palatable" (in terms of what was an "easier sell") and entice more "believers" - IF they could be promised that "ours is a plan that allows you to "cheat" (or add back carbs down the road) as long as it's carbs that WE sell or endorse.

There is no question that it has been "successful" for thousands (if not millions) of people over the years.The original Atkins plan, while it has been "modified" somewhat over the years to incorporate newly discovered "science", really was a remarkable piece of work, especially in light of the nutri-political disgrace that existed at the time,

Right up until the time that John's Hopkins (I think it was if I'm remembering the details correctly) made the decision to "relax" the "requirements" so that it would be an "easier sell" to parents of kids being treated for epilepsy with an LCHF diet (which had been a treatment utilized and highly successful for decades before).

Basically a "marketing" decision - NOT a "science' one and a lesson that the Atkins "suits" not only took notice of but quickly produced "studies" (funded by them) that "proved" the bars and other junk were "ok" because......

Of course one can (and they did) argue that "isn't it better that more people will try and stay on the diet if we promise them that they will be able to "cheat", than will if we don't?"

It's the "anything is better than nothing" argument and to some degree it is valid - that's a decision each of us have to make for ourselves.

Is cutting my carbs from 400g/day to 150/day (e.g.), "better" than "falling off the wagon" completely and returning to 400?

Few would argue with that logic - some of us (myself included), though, would consider it a Hobson's Choice - especially in light of the fact that the decisions were made, NOT based on the science, but rather on what would "sell".

Granted, I'm probably in the minority when it comes to "weight loss v long term health benefits" concerns "most" people likely consider their "primary" reason for considering the LCHF journey and there simply is no argument that "easier" and "less restrictive" it can be made to appear, the better it will "sell".

That trade off, however, is indeed a "trade-off" and doesn't come without compromise (especially as it relates to long term health issues).

Are the compromises "worth it" - I can't answer that for anyone but myself but what I can do is try to make folks aware of the fact that there really is "no free lunch" and that they owe it to themselves to at least become aware of "all" of the consequences of whatever approach they decide is "right' for themselves.

Is it a "popular" position, or one that's an "easy sell" - of course not.

Might it "scare off" some that just want "quick and easy"? - probably.

Is that "trade-off" worth it in the end?

I'm really not sure but I'm comforted by the fact that I'm just one "lone voice" in the wilderness compared to the megaphone of nutri-business and I believe that people (for the most part) are smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff IF they are able to access ALL the relevant information and base their decisions on that, rather than what they are "spoon fed" in 30 second commercials or 140 character twits.

And just so it's clear, I am NOT saying that Atkins (or ANY other regimen) isn't the "right" one for anyone who elects to follow that course.

It's not for me, but neither are any number of the other "popular" approaches - each for reasons specific to them with which I take "issue" - FOR ME.

What is "right" for me, and a buck (or I guess now it's a "few bucks") - will get you that proverbial cup of coffee.

What is "right" for anyone else is solely THEIR decision.

MzTeequal

Thank you all for your input, it has been very helpful! A bit calmer about things now. Disappointed about the exercise aspect but I was being overzealous. As I said my bf is v Taubes so I don't have as many carbs when I'm around him.. burgers with no bun and half the amount of chips, sometimes no chips at all. My problem is I have never been a good eater, I'm a serial snacker. On mostly cereal, bread or pastries. I enjoy meat only meals often enough though, dinner at least twice a week is ground beef stir fry. Over the last three or so months I've been quite low carb but I do still have a few slices of bread and two calorie squash. I guess I'm so skeptical about it because my bf touts it as the holy grail.. I spent a month on the no carb (ok I cheated maybe 3 days out of 30) and didn't drop an ounce. But spent loads of money on tuna. Sad about losing so much so quickly. Anyway. I'm planning on sticking to it for at least 6 months so fingers crossed

SN: does bullet proof tea actually taste good? I only drink English breakfast black with one/two sugars or green tea with one Sweetex. Like I said, no milk.

jaimekbee1219

This post is so incredibly helpful. I've been reading a ton here and on PCOS boards... but having it written out in such a concise way makes it easier to make sense of it all. Thanks!

hotsungirl

a

Dragonwolf

MzTeequal wrote: »

Thank you all for your input, it has been very helpful! A bit calmer about things now. Disappointed about the exercise aspect but I was being overzealous. As I said my bf is v Taubes so I don't have as many carbs when I'm around him.. burgers with no bun and half the amount of chips, sometimes no chips at all. My problem is I have never been a good eater, I'm a serial snacker. On mostly cereal, bread or pastries. I enjoy meat only meals often enough though, dinner at least twice a week is ground beef stir fry. Over the last three or so months I've been quite low carb but I do still have a few slices of bread and two calorie squash. I guess I'm so skeptical about it because my bf touts it as the holy grail.. I spent a month on the no carb (ok I cheated maybe 3 days out of 30) and didn't drop an ounce. But spent loads of money on tuna. Sad about losing so much so quickly. Anyway. I'm planning on sticking to it for at least 6 months so fingers crossed

SN: does bullet proof tea actually taste good? I only drink English breakfast black with one/two sugars or green tea with one Sweetex. Like I said, no milk.

If you were already lower carb before doing "no-carb" (did you eat vegetables? Then you were not "no-carb" -- veggies are carbs, too), then that's likely why. The first two weeks, especially, is primarily water weight loss, and only happens if you went low carb from a high carb diet.

As for bulletproof tea, if you're used to drinking your tea (or coffee, for that matter, this applies there, too) sweetened, then it may take some getting used to, as bulletproof or butter tea/coffee is a savory drink, rather than sweet. Coconut oil can lend some sweetness to it if you use unrefined, but don't expect it to be the same kind of sweetness as what you get from sugar or sweeteners. Think of it more as a cappuccino or latte from a local coffee shop.

A good black tea should be good for it, though I think some people use herbal teas, too. Don't be afraid to experiment. Any tea you might consider putting milk or cream in (regardless of whether you'd actually do so) would probably be a good candidate for butter.

shadesofidaho

I have done the BPC using black tea instead and it is very good.