Low carb dieters!
Options
Replies
-
jenjay8045 wrote: »jennibean40 wrote: »Not at all.. i just know my results. And there are multiple studies, diets, and doctors who agree low carb diets can be more effective than low calorie diets. I could maintain my carb count and increase my calorie count.. and continue to lose weight at the level i have been. If you do some research you will find that the clean eating diets, while not marketed as low carb.. boast a MUCH lower carb count than a basic low calorie diet. It comes down to the foods you choose. Most carbs are bad for your body. Yes you need some carbs. This is known. And in response to "hard to maintain" i disagree... not any harder than a low calorie dieter who wants icecream. There is a vast array of foods you can eat and on a maintenance low carb diet you can still consume many regular foods. Ps every diet sheds water weight at first.
You will find nothing but haters and trash talkers no matter how much research you provide them with. I know a gentleman who weighed 600 pounds less than 6 months ago, but since starting aketo diet he has lost over a 150 pounds.......but he must be doing it wrong...because he doesnt count calories.. I guess he shouldnt be losing any weight...
Yes, that's exactly what everyone here is saying.
Talk about a straw man argument. *SMH*
The OP said that she eats the same amount of calories high carb as low carb and could not lose weight until she went low carb. People said that was not true. How many calories you eat determine how much weight you lose or gain, and what kind of food you eat does not matter for weight loss beyond personal preference and what keeps you satiated (which would allow you to remain in a deficit).
Then craziness happened.
Yes, I know all of this. That's why I said she was incorrect in her assessment of the people replying. Hence, straw man argument.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
Oh, I'm not disputing anything about how it works for you. I'm questioning the words you use and how helpful it might be to someone reading.
Saying that you can "eat until you're full" is a nebulous concept that doesn't explain HOW low carbing works to make you lose weight. To an emotional eater, it sounds like a magic ticket for weight loss.
Like I said, it doesn't work for everyone - nothing does.
I very much doubt anyone who loves their carbs or has an emotional attachment to that type of food would be successful long term on low carb.
Just like million and millions will not be successful on calorie counting or just eating in moderation.
You are missing my point, but it's not worth playing word games with you.
I ate low carb for 7 years without cheating. A hunk of that time was paleo, without dairy. And this was old school paleo, which was low carb.
I didn't have an "emotional attachment" to carbs.
I was an emotional eater who ate past satiety. It didn't matter what kind of food I was eating. Ketosis wasn't a magic bullet for appetite suppression.
ALL I was told going into low carbing was that I needed to cut carbs and to eat until I felt full. My "full feeler" was broken due to emotional issues and ketosis won't fix those.
Explanations of the mechanism of low carbing need to be accompanied by the acknowledgement that ketosis restricts appetite to the point that a caloric deficit is achieved, otherwise they are not portraying a true picture.
I am not in anyway disputing that emotional eaters will find 'everything' difficult.
As I said I can only explain how it works for me.
Also I would say that ketosis is not an essential requirement for low carb to be successful. I sometimes dip into keto but very rarely. I would think I hit around 80 - 120g of carbs a day.
Also I'm not playing word games, I'm just pointing out that for a lot of low carbers, not eating high carbs is a struggle or an emotional or physical depravity.
We're just not that into carbs!
Nice try.
Nice try?
If there's one thing I certain of - I don't try.
Nope, you're definitely trying.
I guess I finally played word games. Yay me?
0 -
jenjay8045 wrote: »jennibean40 wrote: »Not at all.. i just know my results. And there are multiple studies, diets, and doctors who agree low carb diets can be more effective than low calorie diets. I could maintain my carb count and increase my calorie count.. and continue to lose weight at the level i have been. If you do some research you will find that the clean eating diets, while not marketed as low carb.. boast a MUCH lower carb count than a basic low calorie diet. It comes down to the foods you choose. Most carbs are bad for your body. Yes you need some carbs. This is known. And in response to "hard to maintain" i disagree... not any harder than a low calorie dieter who wants icecream. There is a vast array of foods you can eat and on a maintenance low carb diet you can still consume many regular foods. Ps every diet sheds water weight at first.
You will find nothing but haters and trash talkers no matter how much research you provide them with. I know a gentleman who weighed 600 pounds less than 6 months ago, but since starting aketo diet he has lost over a 150 pounds.......but he must be doing it wrong...because he doesnt count calories.. I guess he shouldnt be losing any weight...
question ..
is he in a calorie deficit; yes or no?
for the millionth time no one is bashing keto ...we are simply saying that it is a form of calorie restriction that that it is not superior to any other low calorie diet...< or do you disagree???
^^THIS0 -
jenjay8045 wrote: »jennibean40 wrote: »Not at all.. i just know my results. And there are multiple studies, diets, and doctors who agree low carb diets can be more effective than low calorie diets. I could maintain my carb count and increase my calorie count.. and continue to lose weight at the level i have been. If you do some research you will find that the clean eating diets, while not marketed as low carb.. boast a MUCH lower carb count than a basic low calorie diet. It comes down to the foods you choose. Most carbs are bad for your body. Yes you need some carbs. This is known. And in response to "hard to maintain" i disagree... not any harder than a low calorie dieter who wants icecream. There is a vast array of foods you can eat and on a maintenance low carb diet you can still consume many regular foods. Ps every diet sheds water weight at first.
You will find nothing but haters and trash talkers no matter how much research you provide them with. I know a gentleman who weighed 600 pounds less than 6 months ago, but since starting aketo diet he has lost over a 150 pounds.......but he must be doing it wrong...because he doesnt count calories.. I guess he shouldnt be losing any weight...
Yes, that's exactly what everyone here is saying.
Talk about a straw man argument. *SMH*
The OP said that she eats the same amount of calories high carb as low carb and could not lose weight until she went low carb. People said that was not true. How many calories you eat determine how much weight you lose or gain, and what kind of food you eat does not matter for weight loss beyond personal preference and what keeps you satiated (which would allow you to remain in a deficit).
Then craziness happened.
Yes, I know all of this. That's why I said she was incorrect in her assessment of the people replying. Hence, straw man argument.
Sorry, my sarcasm meter was off for the first sentence.0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »Correct me if I'm wrong, I might be getting my quacks mixed up, but doesn't Taubes suggest that cico doesn't work and that it's sugar that makes people fat?
No, that would be Lustig who is the fructophobe.
A better approximation to what Taubes thinks might be that dietary carbohydrates increase insulin and hence lead to increased fat storage / reduced fat loss.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Explanations of the mechanism of low carbing need to be accompanied by the acknowledgement that ketosis restricts appetite to the point that a caloric deficit is achieved, otherwise they are not portraying a true picture.
By the same token you could say that nearly all weight loss diets involve carbohydrate restriction, otherwise you are not portraying a true picture.
0 -
Someone should tell Jimmy Moorelittleapple0913 wrote: »0 -
so you lose weight in calorie surplus?0 -
who knows, I don't have a metabolic chamber.
Sometimes I don't lose weight when I appear to eat less than what is predicted for my energy consumption.
Kevin D Hall, high priest of CICO mathematics, recently published work that showed quite different outcomes from the same 800 calorie restriction in the same people.0 -
0
-
who knows, I don't have a metabolic chamber.
its cool you don't want to answer the question that is fine…just keep on keep on …
I mean its accepted fact that you gain in a surplus and lose in a deficit, but I guess you disagree? yea, I know your not a metabolic chamber, I get it….
0 -
I'm sure a retrospective energy and mass balance in steady state will balance, I just have no way of knowing if I'm in a surplus or a deficit currently.
If you sign up as a devout believer in CICO then you have no alternative but to see weight loss as "a deficit", but you don't know that to be the case. You're just restating your belief. Likewise when some well meaning and sincere person says they eat 1200 calories and don't lose weight you have no alternative but to say they are lying and must be eating more. That's fine, belief systems are what they are.
I'm just a bit more flexible, but I am 100% certain that you were incorrect in your assertion that "if you are low carb you are low calorie".0 -
I'm sure a retrospective energy and mass balance in steady state will balance, I just have no way of knowing if I'm in a surplus or a deficit currently.
If you sign up as a devout believer in CICO then you have no alternative but to see weight loss as "a deficit", but you don't know that to be the case. You're just restating your belief. Likewise when some well meaning and sincere person says they eat 1200 calories and don't lose weight you have no alternative but to say they are lying and must be eating more. That's fine, belief systems are what they are.
I'm just a bit more flexible, but I am 100% certain that you were incorrect in your assertion that "if you are low carb you are low calorie".
I know when I eat about 3100 calories day I gain about a pound per week, and when I eat about 2250 calories a day I lose a pound per week …
if you are so unsure why don't you figure out your TDEE and eat 500 calories a day over that for three months and see what happens?0 -
I know when I eat about 3100 calories day I gain about a pound per week, and when I eat about 2250 calories a day I lose a pound per week …
I'm pleased you are that repeatable and controlled.if you are so unsure why don't you figure out your TDEE and eat 500 calories a day over that for three months and see what happens?
I could guesstimate my TDEE and eat 500 calories a day more, but I don't want to put on 12 pounds so that's why I wouldn't do that. Especially as I can eat less than my guesstimated TDEE and not lose weight. Plus I'm not that bothered to do that n=1 experiment I'll just read someone else's instead preferably with a bigger sample size.
Doing an extra 1600 calories a night of parcel handling (HRM) for 6 weeks and eating 500-600 calories per night shift didn't affect my weight.
0 -
I know when I eat about 3100 calories day I gain about a pound per week, and when I eat about 2250 calories a day I lose a pound per week …
I'm pleased you are that repeatable and controlled.if you are so unsure why don't you figure out your TDEE and eat 500 calories a day over that for three months and see what happens?
I could guesstimate my TDEE and eat 500 calories a day more, but I don't want to put on 12 pounds so that's why I wouldn't do that. Especially as I can eat less than my guesstimated TDEE and not lose weight. Plus I'm not that bothered to do that n=1 experiment I'll just read someone else's instead preferably with a bigger sample size.
Doing an extra 1600 calories a night of parcel handling (HRM) for 6 weeks and eating 500-600 calories per night shift didn't affect my weight.
not repeatable or controlled…I just have enough to data to know where I gain, maintain, and lose.
You say that you are not sure about CICO but then you say you don't want to eat 500 over maintenance because you don't want to gain 12 pounds…isn't that CICO????0 -
jenjay8045 wrote: »jennibean40 wrote: »Not at all.. i just know my results. And there are multiple studies, diets, and doctors who agree low carb diets can be more effective than low calorie diets. I could maintain my carb count and increase my calorie count.. and continue to lose weight at the level i have been. If you do some research you will find that the clean eating diets, while not marketed as low carb.. boast a MUCH lower carb count than a basic low calorie diet. It comes down to the foods you choose. Most carbs are bad for your body. Yes you need some carbs. This is known. And in response to "hard to maintain" i disagree... not any harder than a low calorie dieter who wants icecream. There is a vast array of foods you can eat and on a maintenance low carb diet you can still consume many regular foods. Ps every diet sheds water weight at first.
You will find nothing but haters and trash talkers no matter how much research you provide them with. I know a gentleman who weighed 600 pounds less than 6 months ago, but since starting aketo diet he has lost over a 150 pounds.......but he must be doing it wrong...because he doesnt count calories.. I guess he shouldnt be losing any weight...
Yes, that's exactly what everyone here is saying.
Talk about a straw man argument. *SMH*
The OP said that she eats the same amount of calories high carb as low carb and could not lose weight until she went low carb. People said that was not true. How many calories you eat determine how much weight you lose or gain, and what kind of food you eat does not matter for weight loss beyond personal preference and what keeps you satiated (which would allow you to remain in a deficit).
Then craziness happened.
Yes, I know all of this. That's why I said she was incorrect in her assessment of the people replying. Hence, straw man argument.
Sorry, my sarcasm meter was off for the first sentence.
LOL I figured.
It happens. Next time I will use my emotive asterisks.0 -
I would say that the "old school" (Eaton, Konner, Cordain) advocates moderate carbs. Which book were you following, mamapeach?mamapeach910 wrote: »And this was old school paleo, which was low carb.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions