Low carb dieters!
Options
Replies
-
Well I am not so sure low carb does always equal low calorie. A gram of fat is more than 2x a gram of carb.....so if you go eg high fat low carb chances are you will eat a lot of calories.
For example the people I know who have eaten low carb and lost weight always talked about how great it was to feast on stuff like cheese. Hardly cheap calories.
Most of this is anecdotal anyway, but if it works for someone then great. The science is all pretty up in the air anyway IMO.0 -
True, after initial water loss you will lose like everyone else. That said, that initial water loss that happens so quickly is what gets most people hooked on low carb as being... better.Paul_Collyer wrote: »- The water weight argument is a straw man IMO. You may lose a couple of kg initially from carrying less water, but you can't keep losing water. After that initial water loss you will lose weight like anyone else, be that fat or muscle mass.
Yep^0 -
I do very well on low-carb - and I mean ultra-low, about 20-ish grams a day (and those grams are fibrous, not starchy). My skin is clearer, my stomach issues disappear, I urinate/eliminate more efficiently (less, certainly, because my system is not jammed with starchy carbs), I think clearer, my mood improves, my energy levels soar and my weight drops steadily. My cravings for sweets go away and I feel satisfied and full most of the time.
I have two problems with low-carbing - leg cramps pop up more often when I'm eating this way, and my urine has a very strange smell. I cannot say it's any more unpleasant than the regular smell of urine, but it's noticeable. I have read how others experience both of these issues when the body enters a ketogenic state, so I don't feel alone in this and, frankly, the results are worth dealing with both of these things.
My issue is going back on carbs - when I do eat a sandwich or have a piece of pizza after a weigh-in (my "cheat" meal) I often experience severe heartburn and then the cravings come back in a surge and, like an addict, I just crave more and more and then BAM I'm eating way off plan again. It's tough but I figure I have to live a little and as long as I stick to one or two starchy "splurges" a week (I can still fit them into my calorie count with no problem) I am good to go. I just have to keep some Mylanta or Pepto Bismol on hand.
0 -
Paul_Collyer wrote: »Well I am not so sure low carb does always equal low calorie. A gram of fat is more than 2x a gram of carb.....so if you go eg high fat low carb chances are you will eat a lot of calories.
For example the people I know who have eaten low carb and lost weight always talked about how great it was to feast on stuff like cheese. Hardly cheap calories.
Most of this is anecdotal anyway, but if it works for someone then great. The science is all pretty up in the air anyway IMO.
so are you trying to say that you can eat low carb, be in a caloric surplus, and still lose weight?0 -
One other thing - I found the initial water loss morale boost occurred for me when I started this process, and that was nowhere near low carb. I think generally people lose water to some degree when they start a diet and eat less regardless of the make up of it.0
-
Paul_Collyer wrote: »The science is all pretty up in the air anyway IMO.
It's actually not. The actual physics behind CICO for weight loss is very sound.
The broscience behind how one way to achieve CICO is better than any other way is not.0 -
I do very well on low-carb - and I mean ultra-low, about 20-ish grams a day (and those grams are fibrous, not starchy). My skin is clearer, my stomach issues disappear, I urinate/eliminate more efficiently (less, certainly, because my system is not jammed with starchy carbs), I think clearer, my mood improves, my energy levels soar and my weight drops steadily. My cravings for sweets go away and I feel satisfied and full most of the time.
I have two problems with low-carbing - leg cramps pop up more often when I'm eating this way, and my urine has a very strange smell. I cannot say it's any more unpleasant than the regular smell of urine, but it's noticeable. I have read how others experience both of these issues when the body enters a ketogenic state, so I don't feel alone in this and, frankly, the results are worth dealing with both of these things.
My issue is going back on carbs - when I do eat a sandwich or have a piece of pizza after a weigh-in (my "cheat" meal) I often experience severe heartburn and then the cravings come back in a surge and, like an addict, I just crave more and more and then BAM I'm eating way off plan again. It's tough but I figure I have to live a little and as long as I stick to one or two starchy "splurges" a week (I can still fit them into my calorie count with no problem) I am good to go. I just have to keep some Mylanta or Pepto Bismol on hand.
sincere question here and no snark ..
do you view low carb as a calorie restriction tool that lowers your overall calorie intake?
OR
Do you view low carb as something where your calories are the same but you are losing weight just because low carb?0 -
I do very well on low-carb - and I mean ultra-low, about 20-ish grams a day (and those grams are fibrous, not starchy). My skin is clearer, my stomach issues disappear, I urinate/eliminate more efficiently (less, certainly, because my system is not jammed with starchy carbs), I think clearer, my mood improves, my energy levels soar and my weight drops steadily. My cravings for sweets go away and I feel satisfied and full most of the time.
I have two problems with low-carbing - leg cramps pop up more often when I'm eating this way, and my urine has a very strange smell. I cannot say it's any more unpleasant than the regular smell of urine, but it's noticeable. I have read how others experience both of these issues when the body enters a ketogenic state, so I don't feel alone in this and, frankly, the results are worth dealing with both of these things.
My issue is going back on carbs - when I do eat a sandwich or have a piece of pizza after a weigh-in (my "cheat" meal) I often experience severe heartburn and then the cravings come back in a surge and, like an addict, I just crave more and more and then BAM I'm eating way off plan again. It's tough but I figure I have to live a little and as long as I stick to one or two starchy "splurges" a week (I can still fit them into my calorie count with no problem) I am good to go. I just have to keep some Mylanta or Pepto Bismol on hand.
Your potassium is low. Also check how much water you're drinking. With keto especially, you have to be more diligent about sodium, magnesium and potassium, as well as hydration. Unfortunately, MFP is pretty useless for tracking that, since the potassium isn't entered in most foods that have it. Greens, avocados, mushrooms and fish will help, and you can add No-Salt too boost it more if those aren't appealing every day.0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »I cant even with you right now. Im sorry you are unhappy i disagree with you. Its simply this...
I DID do a low calorie diet only on and off for many years. With very little weight loss.
I did low carb (which incidently kept me at the same low level of calories) and lost up to 7lbs a week.
So you are telling me, in all the years i tried low calorie before, when i just so happen to start low carb... the calorie defecit is the only contributing factor?
Why then.. when i was simply on a reg carb low cal, did i not lose 7lbs in a week?
Please explain, oh enlightened one, keeper of all truths to the universe.
didn't you admit that you did not track calories? So if you were not tracking calories, logging all your food, weighing your food then more than likely you are not in as great a calorie deficit as you thought, or were not in one at all.
Once you switched to restricted all carbs, that eliminated most of the calorie dense foods in your diet and put you into a calorie deficit.
I know that you think you are some special person that lives outside of the boundaries of math and physics, but, I hate to break it to you, you are not.
Calories In VS Calories Out applies to all of us, period.
Well, there's a different way of looking at it. I don't necessarily argue against the concept of a calorie. I lost 50 lbs 2 years ago changing my way of eating.
I have since been at my maintenenace weight for 2 years. Never once have I paid attention to a calorie count. Ever. I never knew how many calories were present in anything that I ate - throughout the weight loss and the weight maintenance period. My body just seems to have found a set point in weight that I like. Am I eating a low calorie diet or a high calorie diet? am I in a deficit? Who knows. Maybe.
Why isn't my diary open? Because I don't have a diary. I don't LOG food. I EAT food.
All I know is that I do eat delicious calorie dense food, and plenty of it. Grass fed meats (and I don't waste a drop of fat - the lamb chops and duck breasts have tonnes of fat on them), fish, fowl, lots of pastured eggs, grass fed full fat cheese (yes for you inquisitive folk who have commented before, cheeses can eat grass), lots and lots of nuts, plenty of veggies, liberal use of olive and coconut oil, ghee, dark chocolate. My barometer is that I eat until I am full and I eat whenever I feel like it. I do limit fruit however. You've probably also figured out what I don't eat.
Health markers improved and I am happy with them.
So am I in a deficit? Surplus? Or am I breaking even? Maybe to all. I can't tell you. And my appetite (or the scale) would never know it either.
And I prefer it that way - eating delicious food daily until I'm full and satisfied. I love not wasting time weighing food and logging food. Or keeping track of how many calories are in what. And I love not having any craving for any junk food or grains whatsoever anymore. I actually enjoy the nausea that comes when seeing or smelling such foods. In other words, I enjoy not feeling any torture at all (as you have used that word previously).
That's just one of the reasons I prefer to watch what I eat, rather than how much - regardless of what is actually happening calorie-wise within my body. But to each their own.
Just thought I'd share. Enjoy that N of 1.0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »I cant even with you right now. Im sorry you are unhappy i disagree with you. Its simply this...
I DID do a low calorie diet only on and off for many years. With very little weight loss.
I did low carb (which incidently kept me at the same low level of calories) and lost up to 7lbs a week.
So you are telling me, in all the years i tried low calorie before, when i just so happen to start low carb... the calorie defecit is the only contributing factor?
Why then.. when i was simply on a reg carb low cal, did i not lose 7lbs in a week?
Please explain, oh enlightened one, keeper of all truths to the universe.
didn't you admit that you did not track calories? So if you were not tracking calories, logging all your food, weighing your food then more than likely you are not in as great a calorie deficit as you thought, or were not in one at all.
Once you switched to restricted all carbs, that eliminated most of the calorie dense foods in your diet and put you into a calorie deficit.
I know that you think you are some special person that lives outside of the boundaries of math and physics, but, I hate to break it to you, you are not.
Calories In VS Calories Out applies to all of us, period.
Well, there's a different way of looking at it. I don't necessarily argue against the concept of a calorie. I lost 50 lbs 2 years ago changing my way of eating.
I have since been at my maintenenace weight for 2 years. Never once have I paid attention to a calorie count. Ever. I never knew how many calories were present in anything that I ate - throughout the weight loss and the weight maintenance period. My body just seems to have found a set point in weight that I like. Am I eating a low calorie diet or a high calorie diet? am I in a deficit? Who knows. Maybe.
Why isn't my diary open? Because I don't have a diary. I don't LOG food. I EAT food.
All I know is that I do eat delicious calorie dense food, and plenty of it. Grass fed meats (and I don't waste a drop of fat - the lamb chops and duck breasts have tonnes of fat on them), fish, fowl, lots of pastured eggs, grass fed full fat cheese (yes for you inquisitive folk who have commented before, cheeses can eat grass), lots and lots of nuts, plenty of veggies, liberal use of olive and coconut oil, ghee, dark chocolate. My barometer is that I eat until I am full and I eat whenever I feel like it. I do limit fruit however. You've probably also figured out what I don't eat.
Health markers improved and I am happy with them.
So am I in a deficit? Surplus? Or am I breaking even? Maybe to all. I can't tell you. And my appetite (or the scale) would never know it either.
And I prefer it that way - eating delicious food daily until I'm full and satisfied. I love not wasting time weighing food and logging food. Or keeping track of how many calories are in what. And I love not having any craving for any junk food or grains whatsoever anymore. I actually enjoy the nausea that comes when seeing or smelling such foods. In other words, I enjoy not feeling any torture at all (as you have used that word previously).
That's just one of the reasons I prefer to watch what I eat, rather than how much - regardless of what is actually happening calorie-wise within my body. But to each their own.
Just thought I'd share. Enjoy that N of 1.
that is called intuitive eating and if you are not gaining then you are eating at maintenance level.
I have been at this for so long that if I stopped tracking and weighing I would probably hit just about the same numbers every day because I know what I eat and what that breaks out into calories/macros/micros...I don't because I like to have the data that MFP provides me...
what you are doing does not negate CICO ..you have just found the right balance of the equation for you.0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »I cant even with you right now. Im sorry you are unhappy i disagree with you. Its simply this...
I DID do a low calorie diet only on and off for many years. With very little weight loss.
I did low carb (which incidently kept me at the same low level of calories) and lost up to 7lbs a week.
So you are telling me, in all the years i tried low calorie before, when i just so happen to start low carb... the calorie defecit is the only contributing factor?
Why then.. when i was simply on a reg carb low cal, did i not lose 7lbs in a week?
Please explain, oh enlightened one, keeper of all truths to the universe.
didn't you admit that you did not track calories? So if you were not tracking calories, logging all your food, weighing your food then more than likely you are not in as great a calorie deficit as you thought, or were not in one at all.
Once you switched to restricted all carbs, that eliminated most of the calorie dense foods in your diet and put you into a calorie deficit.
I know that you think you are some special person that lives outside of the boundaries of math and physics, but, I hate to break it to you, you are not.
Calories In VS Calories Out applies to all of us, period.
Well, there's a different way of looking at it. I don't necessarily argue against the concept of a calorie. I lost 50 lbs 2 years ago changing my way of eating.
I have since been at my maintenenace weight for 2 years. Never once have I paid attention to a calorie count. Ever. I never knew how many calories were present in anything that I ate - throughout the weight loss and the weight maintenance period. My body just seems to have found a set point in weight that I like. Am I eating a low calorie diet or a high calorie diet? am I in a deficit? Who knows. Maybe.
Why isn't my diary open? Because I don't have a diary. I don't LOG food. I EAT food.
All I know is that I do eat delicious calorie dense food, and plenty of it. Grass fed meats (and I don't waste a drop of fat - the lamb chops and duck breasts have tonnes of fat on them), fish, fowl, lots of pastured eggs, grass fed full fat cheese (yes for you inquisitive folk who have commented before, cheeses can eat grass), lots and lots of nuts, plenty of veggies, liberal use of olive and coconut oil, ghee, dark chocolate. My barometer is that I eat until I am full and I eat whenever I feel like it. I do limit fruit however. You've probably also figured out what I don't eat.
Health markers improved and I am happy with them.
So am I in a deficit? Surplus? Or am I breaking even? Maybe to all. I can't tell you. And my appetite (or the scale) would never know it either.
And I prefer it that way - eating delicious food daily until I'm full and satisfied. I love not wasting time weighing food and logging food. Or keeping track of how many calories are in what. And I love not having any craving for any junk food or grains whatsoever anymore. I actually enjoy the nausea that comes when seeing or smelling such foods. In other words, I enjoy not feeling any torture at all (as you have used that word previously).
That's just one of the reasons I prefer to watch what I eat, rather than how much - regardless of what is actually happening calorie-wise within my body. But to each their own.
Just thought I'd share. Enjoy that N of 1.
that is called intuitive eating and if you are not gaining then you are eating at maintenance level.
I have been at this for so long that if I stopped tracking and weighing I would probably hit just about the same numbers every day because I know what I eat and what that breaks out into calories/macros/micros...I don't because I like to have the data that MFP provides me...
what you are doing does not negate CICO ..you have just found the right balance of the equation for you.
Exactly. I'm not really trying to negate CICO. And yeah, it's intuitive eating.
but to make intuitive eating possible (at least for me), the focus on "what" replaces the focus on "how much" in the diet. That's all I was saying. Just a different way of looking at it.0 -
Not everyone's body responds the same way to different approaches to losing weight. The key is to find a match for your body and metabolism.
Dr Atkins, a well-known cardiologist, limited his patient's intake of sugar and carbohydrates. As a result, many of his patients successfully lost weight and kept it off – even though they had previously been unsuccessful on regular low-calorie diets!
The key was understanding that everyone's metabolism can use two different types of fuel for energy – either sugar (and carbs that are quickly turned into sugar by the body), or fat. But the type of fuel you burn can have a big difference in losing or maintaining weight. A typical diet reduces calories, but is still high in carbohydrates (and thus sugar). As a result, many people constantly cycle between sugar "highs" (where excess sugar is actually stored as fat in the body) and sugar "lows" (where you feel fatigued, and ravenously hungry – for more carbs and sugar). For many, it's really hard to lose weight that way.
Atkins, on the other hand, limits carbohydrates (sugar), so the body burns fat, including body fat, for fuel. This approach leaves the body steadily fueled, and weight is lost, even when more calories are being consumed. Steady fueling also means more constant energy levels all day long, and less hunger and cravings! You can actually lose weight while feeling full! The science behind the Atkins principles has been proven by over 80 clinical studies!
Yeah.. me and these 80 clinical studies, and the thousands of low carb diet success stories live in our own universe.. you should visit sometime!0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »Not everyone's body responds the same way to different approaches to losing weight. The key is to find a match for your body and metabolism.
Dr Atkins, a well-known cardiologist, limited his patient's intake of sugar and carbohydrates. As a result, many of his patients successfully lost weight and kept it off – even though they had previously been unsuccessful on regular low-calorie diets!
The key was understanding that everyone's metabolism can use two different types of fuel for energy – either sugar (and carbs that are quickly turned into sugar by the body), or fat. But the type of fuel you burn can have a big difference in losing or maintaining weight. A typical diet reduces calories, but is still high in carbohydrates (and thus sugar). As a result, many people constantly cycle between sugar "highs" (where excess sugar is actually stored as fat in the body) and sugar "lows" (where you feel fatigued, and ravenously hungry – for more carbs and sugar). For many, it's really hard to lose weight that way.
Atkins, on the other hand, limits carbohydrates (sugar), so the body burns fat, including body fat, for fuel. This approach leaves the body steadily fueled, and weight is lost, even when more calories are being consumed. Steady fueling also means more constant energy levels all day long, and less hunger and cravings! You can actually lose weight while feeling full! The science behind the Atkins principles has been proven by over 80 clinical studies!
Yeah.. me and these 80 clinical studies, and the thousands of low carb diet success stories live in our own universe.. you should visit sometime!
You don't understand half of the things you just talked about. Sorry.0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »Not everyone's body responds the same way to different approaches to losing weight. The key is to find a match for your body and metabolism.
Dr Atkins, a well-known cardiologist, limited his patient's intake of sugar and carbohydrates. As a result, many of his patients successfully lost weight and kept it off – even though they had previously been unsuccessful on regular low-calorie diets!
The key was understanding that everyone's metabolism can use two different types of fuel for energy – either sugar (and carbs that are quickly turned into sugar by the body), or fat. But the type of fuel you burn can have a big difference in losing or maintaining weight. A typical diet reduces calories, but is still high in carbohydrates (and thus sugar). As a result, many people constantly cycle between sugar "highs" (where excess sugar is actually stored as fat in the body) and sugar "lows" (where you feel fatigued, and ravenously hungry – for more carbs and sugar). For many, it's really hard to lose weight that way.
Atkins, on the other hand, limits carbohydrates (sugar), so the body burns fat, including body fat, for fuel. This approach leaves the body steadily fueled, and weight is lost, even when more calories are being consumed. Steady fueling also means more constant energy levels all day long, and less hunger and cravings! You can actually lose weight while feeling full! The science behind the Atkins principles has been proven by over 80 clinical studies!
Yeah.. me and these 80 clinical studies, and the thousands of low carb diet success stories live in our own universe.. you should visit sometime!
You copied and pasted this directly from the Atkins website. This is just an advertisement to make you buy their products and is in no way a reliable source.0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »Not everyone's body responds the same way to different approaches to losing weight. The key is to find a match for your body and metabolism.
Dr Atkins, a well-known cardiologist, limited his patient's intake of sugar and carbohydrates. As a result, many of his patients successfully lost weight and kept it off – even though they had previously been unsuccessful on regular low-calorie diets!
The key was understanding that everyone's metabolism can use two different types of fuel for energy – either sugar (and carbs that are quickly turned into sugar by the body), or fat. But the type of fuel you burn can have a big difference in losing or maintaining weight. A typical diet reduces calories, but is still high in carbohydrates (and thus sugar). As a result, many people constantly cycle between sugar "highs" (where excess sugar is actually stored as fat in the body) and sugar "lows" (where you feel fatigued, and ravenously hungry – for more carbs and sugar). For many, it's really hard to lose weight that way.
Atkins, on the other hand, limits carbohydrates (sugar), so the body burns fat, including body fat, for fuel. This approach leaves the body steadily fueled, and weight is lost, even when more calories are being consumed. Steady fueling also means more constant energy levels all day long, and less hunger and cravings! You can actually lose weight while feeling full! The science behind the Atkins principles has been proven by over 80 clinical studies!
Yeah.. me and these 80 clinical studies, and the thousands of low carb diet success stories live in our own universe.. you should visit sometime!
No one is doubting that low carb works... it just not for the reasons you think.
0 -
Has there not been a true study on this by now?
Same calorie intake, one low carb. the other not.
I find myself curious about this now and may do more research. hummm0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »Not everyone's body responds the same way to different approaches to losing weight. The key is to find a match for your body and metabolism.
Dr Atkins, a well-known cardiologist, limited his patient's intake of sugar and carbohydrates. As a result, many of his patients successfully lost weight and kept it off – even though they had previously been unsuccessful on regular low-calorie diets!
The key was understanding that everyone's metabolism can use two different types of fuel for energy – either sugar (and carbs that are quickly turned into sugar by the body), or fat. But the type of fuel you burn can have a big difference in losing or maintaining weight. A typical diet reduces calories, but is still high in carbohydrates (and thus sugar). As a result, many people constantly cycle between sugar "highs" (where excess sugar is actually stored as fat in the body) and sugar "lows" (where you feel fatigued, and ravenously hungry – for more carbs and sugar). For many, it's really hard to lose weight that way.
Atkins, on the other hand, limits carbohydrates (sugar), so the body burns fat, including body fat, for fuel. This approach leaves the body steadily fueled, and weight is lost, even when more calories are being consumed. Steady fueling also means more constant energy levels all day long, and less hunger and cravings! You can actually lose weight while feeling full! The science behind the Atkins principles has been proven by over 80 clinical studies!
Yeah.. me and these 80 clinical studies, and the thousands of low carb diet success stories live in our own universe.. you should visit sometime!
Millions of people have followed Atkins since the 70's, yet obesity still exist. Google the picture of keto beast Jimmy Moore standing next to high-carb vegan durianrider. It is quite telling0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »Not everyone's body responds the same way to different approaches to losing weight. The key is to find a match for your body and metabolism.
Dr Atkins, a well-known cardiologist, limited his patient's intake of sugar and carbohydrates. As a result, many of his patients successfully lost weight and kept it off – even though they had previously been unsuccessful on regular low-calorie diets!
The key was understanding that everyone's metabolism can use two different types of fuel for energy – either sugar (and carbs that are quickly turned into sugar by the body), or fat. But the type of fuel you burn can have a big difference in losing or maintaining weight. A typical diet reduces calories, but is still high in carbohydrates (and thus sugar). As a result, many people constantly cycle between sugar "highs" (where excess sugar is actually stored as fat in the body) and sugar "lows" (where you feel fatigued, and ravenously hungry – for more carbs and sugar). For many, it's really hard to lose weight that way.
Atkins, on the other hand, limits carbohydrates (sugar), so the body burns fat, including body fat, for fuel. This approach leaves the body steadily fueled, and weight is lost, even when more calories are being consumed. Steady fueling also means more constant energy levels all day long, and less hunger and cravings! You can actually lose weight while feeling full! The science behind the Atkins principles has been proven by over 80 clinical studies!
Yeah.. me and these 80 clinical studies, and the thousands of low carb diet success stories live in our own universe.. you should visit sometime!
guess what they all have in common...
they all RESTRICT calories...
CICO works for everyone...
-1 -
Limiting intake of carbs and sugars (same thing) fundamentally limits calories...jennibean40 wrote: »Not everyone's body responds the same way to different approaches to losing weight. The key is to find a match for your body and metabolism.
Dr Atkins, a well-known cardiologist, limited his patient's intake of sugar and carbohydrates. As a result, many of his patients successfully lost weight and kept it off – even though they had previously been unsuccessful on regular low-calorie diets!
Incorrect. It's not an either or. A healthy body uses multiple energy pathways...jennibean40 wrote: »The key was understanding that everyone's metabolism can use two different types of fuel for energy – either sugar (and carbs that are quickly turned into sugar by the body), or fat.
Incorrect...jennibean40 wrote: »But the type of fuel you burn can have a big difference in losing or maintaining weight.
Not if you are in a state of negative energy balance...jennibean40 wrote: »A typical diet reduces calories, but is still high in carbohydrates (and thus sugar). As a result, many people constantly cycle between sugar "highs" (where excess sugar is actually stored as fat in the body) and sugar "lows" (where you feel fatigued, and ravenously hungry – for more carbs and sugar). For many, it's really hard to lose weight that way.
Not if you are in an energy surplus. To limit carbs is the same as to limit calories. CICO...jennibean40 wrote: »Atkins, on the other hand, limits carbohydrates (sugar), so the body burns fat, including body fat, for fuel.
Again, not in an energy surplus...jennibean40 wrote: »This approach leaves the body steadily fueled, and weight is lost, even when more calories are being consumed. Steady fueling also means more constant energy levels all day long, and less hunger and cravings! You can actually lose weight while feeling full! The science behind the Atkins principles has been proven by over 80 clinical studies!
Yes they were successful, but not because of what you think...jennibean40 wrote: »Yeah.. me and these 80 clinical studies, and the thousands of low carb diet success stories live in our own universe.. you should visit sometime!
0 -
Has there not been a true study on this by now?
Same calorie intake, one low carb. the other not.
I find myself curious about this now and may do more research. hummm
there have been studies but some say that low carb is better and others say that high protein is better, OR that there is no difference between moderate diet and low carb diet...
so jury is out..
my suggestion, use whatever tool you feel is necessary to get your in a calorie deficit and meet your long term goals..
just don't say that CICO does not apply to me.-1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions