We need a "Pro Calorie Counting" thread/discussion
Replies
-
LOL, I am nothing if not fair. I might disagree with the need to count, but I want both sides presented as best as possible.
It might be best to include that ad libitum eating will obviously be hard/impossible for people who are trying to closely monitor more than just total carbs. If you're trying to hit a specific protein or fat macro, and/or really calculate net carbs, then you'll need to track for that. Obviously, I deny the importance of this, but that doesn't mean some people don't want to do it.
You have to admit, that relates closely to the vegetable issue. A meatatarian is highly unlikely to ever go too high on carbs to begin with. If you eat them, though, you can't just wing it and assume you're low enough, especially if you're aiming for keto.
Just for the sake of Devil's Advocacy...
I've been doing keto for over 9 months, and I've been playing around a bit these last couple weeks. I find as long as I stick with leafy greens, green above-ground veggies, low-carb dairy, and no more than 2oz nuts daily, and keep carrots, onions, or tomatoes to an "occasional food," I have little trouble keeping the carbs in check. My habit system keeps itself. That's eating to satiety, mind you. Mine haven't gone over 40 once. Frequently I'm under 30g net carbs. I used to be a human vacuum cleaner when it came to food.
So, as with anything else, YMMV. It's perfectly doable to not track. IF. If you have good satiety cues and if your intake is of low-carb veggies. Once you sufficiently train yourself, it's possible to not count for some people.
I wouldn't adopt this behavior out of the gate, as it can be difficult to get in the swing of things. It's best, IMO-of course
, to count carbs for a few weeks, then add other macros/cal counting. Then, when/if you feel comfortable, you can move away from that and not be so rigid in maintenance.
Just my observations, and everyone has my permission to disagree.
1 -
baconslave wrote: »LOL, I am nothing if not fair. I might disagree with the need to count, but I want both sides presented as best as possible.
It might be best to include that ad libitum eating will obviously be hard/impossible for people who are trying to closely monitor more than just total carbs. If you're trying to hit a specific protein or fat macro, and/or really calculate net carbs, then you'll need to track for that. Obviously, I deny the importance of this, but that doesn't mean some people don't want to do it.
You have to admit, that relates closely to the vegetable issue. A meatatarian is highly unlikely to ever go too high on carbs to begin with. If you eat them, though, you can't just wing it and assume you're low enough, especially if you're aiming for keto.
Just for the sake of Devil's Advocacy...
I've been doing keto for over 9 months, and I've been playing around a bit these last couple weeks. I find as long as I stick with leafy greens, green above-ground veggies, low-carb dairy, and no more than 2oz nuts daily, and keep carrots, onions, or tomatoes to an "occasional food," I have little trouble keeping the carbs in check. My habit system keeps itself. That's eating to satiety, mind you. Mine haven't gone over 40 once. Frequently I'm under 30g net carbs. I used to be a human vacuum cleaner when it came to food.
So, as with anything else, YMMV. It's perfectly doable to not track. IF. If you have good satiety cues and if your intake is of low-carb veggies. Once you sufficiently train yourself, it's possible to not count for some people.
I wouldn't adopt this behavior out of the gate, as it can be difficult to get in the swing of things. It's best, IMO-of course, to count carbs for a few weeks, then add other macros/cal counting. Then, when/if you feel comfortable, you can move away from that and not be so rigid in maintenance.
Just my observations, and everyone has my permission to disagree.
I think that's also a question of where your limit is. I try to stick to 22 or less. Most days (tracking) I hit around 18 or 20 and that sometimes means I have to choose either or, berries or celery, but not both. Other days, I have less of something else, and I do have room for both. 60 is my upper limit where I'm absolutely out of keto, but once I get towards the 30 and up range, that's when I start hitting those patches where I'm out for 4 hrs, back in at dinner. For me, personally, I prefer not to switch back all day, since it just seems like an inefficient use of my resources.
That's also another issue that can change at maintenance, although (see previous post), not tracking on maintenance for me is still dangerous.0 -
If you have good satiety cues
Perhaps it is enough for me to just reply to this and say "I don't, so I calorie count if I want to effectively lose weight," but I like to write a lot instead
At my worst, I would order whatever the "best deal" was at Dominos and honestly plan on spreading it out over 2 or 3 meals, say pizza + wings or 2 pizzas + wings + soda combos. Whatever it was I'd eat as much as possible at once. Despite a year of keto, despite losing 75 pounds on keto and 110 pounds from my max weight overall, I am still sort of that guy. I do not yet know what satiety is. If I choose to fast, I can, and I can go a good while without eating, no problems there. But if I buy a bag of pork rinds and choose to keep it near me in case I want a mid-day snack, the entire bag will be eaten at once. 800 calories instead of 100.
In similar fashion, all food put on my plate at all times will be eaten. I lose weight 100% by preperation. Now, after a full year on keto, do I need to log every calorie? No, I don't. But if I want effective weight loss on keto, I do still find I need to do that. Without it, I will have significantly more ups and downs. I can eyeball my food reasonably well, I'm not saying taht if I don't calorie count I'm going to gain 10 pounds in short order. But I will probably stall out or inch downwards at best, sometimes I inch upwards.
That's the difference for me with keto. I can still eat just as much as I used to when I was 100 pounds heavier. I still feel like I *want* to eat just as much many times. But, on keto if I don't calorie count I just stall or inch up/down depending. On a standard diet if I didn't calorie count I would rocket upwards. So the edge is still heavily in favor of low carb. The other thing is taht I said I "feel like I want to eat just as much". On a standard diet, with my blood sugar going crazy, I feel like I *must* eat or else.
I recognize that I am unable to spot "satisfied" as far as my range of hunger goes. That's something I should probably try to get some help with at some point. But right now, I have my way to manage it and its clearly working, and along with this weight loss I'm doing a ton of other "self help" type undertakings, so this is at the low end of the list.
As far as advice for new folks go... I feel like there are four sides to giving advice to new people:
1) Some experienced low carbers never counted calories and don't need to and hate the CICO dogma. To that group I would say that when giving advice remember that it is possible to eat too much on keto, and for some people not counting calories will hurt them.
2) Some experienced low carbers have a horrible relationship with food and feel the need to count (like me). To my group I would say to keep in mind that very many people have incredible success without counting calories. Don't forget that, don't preach calories to people who don't need it.
3) Many people new to low carb don't know anything but calorie counting, and approach low carb like any other diet. These people could benefit from hearing about the wonders of satiety on low carb diets and may find their lives greatly improved if they learn that they don't have to count everythign all the time.
4) Many people new to low carb have only heard bullet points from atkins. Including "you can eat all you want on low carb, you don't need to count!" These people need to be told that low carb isn't magic, you can still screw it up. That calories can and do matter if you go to an extreme in ignoring them you will not find the success you expect.1 -
Alright, let's see what we have so far. I'm going to try and break down the main arguments into bullet points. If you feel a point needs to be elaborated on, or I missed a point, let me know (or just type what you think should be said and tell me where to stick it).
There's still time, if people want to chime in. I am expected to let this discussion ride for just a bit before I sum it all up. I am going to title each blurb mostly from wabmester's outline, not because I think those are the best labels, but that is where I am starting when scrolling down the thread right now.
(my comments are in parentheses)- That's why we're here on MFP -- to count stuff.
This includes calories and macros. Some people just like to count.
WHY NOT?? I am a geek, I like data, I like graphs, I speak the language that is biology and mathematics
Not counting them when they are right there seems rather pointless, and I want to know how and with what I'm fueling my body. It's important to me.
I like data.
I watch my macros and calories to make sure I'm staying within keto guidelines - Counting keeps us mindful of what we're eating.
Eating without realizing it, snacking, boredom...
if I don't count, I simply lose track.
Tracking also sets you up for good habits. As others have said, keeping mindful of what you put in your mouth
if I buy a bag of pork rinds and choose to keep it near me in case I want a mid-day snack, the entire bag will be eaten at once - Low-carb doesn't guarantee you won't over-eat
Satiety is complex, and low-carb diets may lose their satiety power with time according to studies. (would love the studies)
while LC or keto may keep you in a deficit automatically, there's no guarantee it will
I started low carbing about 3 years ago following a programme which didn't involve any counting, weighing or measuring, just eating low carb foods. It didn't work for me, I made my portions too large and ate too much dairy. I didn't lose a thing.
Despite a year of keto, despite losing 75 pounds on keto and 110 pounds from my max weight overall, [. . .] I do not yet know what satiety is. - Many of the healthful effects of a low-carb diet may be due to calorie deficits, so know your calories.
** I think this one really is the same as it doesn't assure we don't over-eat. I would also love some references here (although we don't need them to let it stay).
- Fat is calorie-dense
If you're not tracking it is easy to over-eat fat and go over your calories. Counting will make you aware if that starts happening.
- We may want to exercise to burn off some of those extra calories
Counting gives you an estimate for how much to punish yourself. (Arg, this is a point I leave only with great deliberation. I think Taubes does a decent job of explaining why exercise does the opposite of helping us lose weight)
- Some foods that are technically allowed are easy to over-eat
I would eat all the fat bombs because they are good and not realize that i was burstingly full till it was too late.
- I have medical or emotional issues that make ad libitum eating less successful
I have PCOS and IR
having a serious medical complication and no insurance
The LC/keto community inherently has a higher percentage of people with health issues than other WOE
Counting calories when your metabolism isn't quite right is more crucial.
post-menopausal - I have a specific timeline and can't let my body decide on how quickly I lose
mine is given by a doctor based on when I want to get pregnant
wedding/special event
I like goals, I like meeting and beating them.
If I don't weigh, measure and record I never reach any of my goals correctly. - Low-Carb can be too satiating and I often under-eat accidentally
I found my self only eating less than 1000 calories a day
count to make sure that I am at least eating my BMR after exercise is accounted for
Sometimes I just don't want food at all
I also have trouble with actual hunger signals. - To help me realize what amount of food is "normal"
I have absolutely no idea how much is 'right' to eat
I need some sort of portion control because my natural sense of how much to eat is completely out of whack.
I am still trying to figure out how many calories a day I actually need.
I think tracking is an excellent way to learn what real healthy portion sizes are and to improve your ability to recognize them - Not counting only works if you eat no veggies
(I disagree, but this isn't my place to argue-Goat)
Sounds like we've reached consensus. Update the no-counting thread to include the "for carnivores only" disclaimer
relates closely to the vegetable issue. A meatatarian is highly unlikely to ever go too high on carbs to begin with. If you eat them, though, you can't just wing it and assume you're low enough, especially if you're aiming for keto.
sometimes means I have to choose either or, berries or celery, but not both.
I think that hits most of the points. Obviously, this needs some elaboration, cleaning up, and editing. radiii makes good points, but I feel like we're trying to address all of them by presenting both sides of the counting/not-counting argument as best as possible. It's why I refused to link to just my "anti-counting" post without having a "pro-counting" post in place to counter it.1 - That's why we're here on MFP -- to count stuff.
-
I mentioned the point about fat being calorie dense because LCHF trains you to increase your fat consumption, but what happens to your eating habits as you fall off of the LC aspect? If you stay HF-trained, you're in trouble.
Here's a study that looked at LC long term (3 years):
http://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/375.pdf
Conclusions: Favorable changes in leptin
that accompany weight loss are not sustained in
individuals who followed a low-carbohydrate diet
for one year. A low-carbohydrate diet had no
significant effect on insulin, adiponectin, TNF-alpha,
or CRP compared to a low-fat diet at 36
months.
Leptin is one of the hunger control hormones. High levels signal satiety, but high levels are also inflammatory. In general, leptin levels decline as you lose weight. This is your body telling you to eat more.
Regarding the point about health effects, most studies that show health effects on a LC diet have weight loss as a confounding factor. In isocaloric studies, low-fat diets showed similar improvement in health markers suggesting it's mostly about weight loss, not LC.2 -
Here's a study that looked at LC long term (3 years):
http://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/375.pdf
Regarding the point about health effects, most studies that show health effects on a LC diet have weight loss as a confounding factor. In isocaloric studies, low-fat diets showed similar improvement in health markers suggesting it's mostly about weight loss, not LC.
I have problems drawing conclusions from this study. While the people were counseled to have a <30 gram/day carbohydrate diet (and likely did for the earlier stages until they started regaining weight), there is an almost complete relapse by the 36 month mark.
At the 36 month mark, the "low-carb" group is averaging over 194 grams/day in carbs and it is making up 39% of their calories. Lower than the baseline and low-fat groups? Yes. But low enough to be considered low-carb? I don't think so. If anything, it could be demonstrated that failing to stay on a low-carb diet will cause a return to the levels observed before.
I think that's a bigger problem than counting, relapse. If you go back to eating carbs, you're obviously not going to be benefiting from low-carb anymore. You'll likely end up back to counting. Same with the argument about being trained to eat more fat being bad, contingent on a return to eating a high carb diet. Yes, eating high-fat and high-carb is likely to be the worst possible thing you can do. But, that's not something the happens because someone didn't count calories when doing a low-carb diet.1 -
You're right, but that's the problem with diets. Very few people stick with them, and I'm not aware of any studies that followed people who adhered to LC for years.
To me, that's an argument to continue logging. We need all the help we can get. 0 -
In isocaloric studies, low-fat diets showed similar improvement in health markers suggesting it's mostly about weight loss, not LC.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916Weight loss was greater for women in the Atkins diet group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months, and mean 12-month weight loss was significantly different between the Atkins and Zone diets (P<.05). Mean 12-month weight loss was as follows: Atkins, −4.7 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], −6.3 to −3.1 kg), Zone, −1.6 kg (95% CI, −2.8 to −0.4 kg), LEARN, −2.6 kg (−3.8 to −1.3 kg), and Ornish, −2.2 kg (−3.6 to −0.8 kg). Weight loss was not statistically different among the Zone, LEARN, and Ornish groups. At 12 months, secondary outcomes for the Atkins group were comparable with or more favorable than the other diet groups.
While this is not strictly iso-caloric, the reported calories for each of the groups was very similar. There's less than 100 calories difference between the Atkins group and the other groups at any specific point in time. The low carb group did lose more weight though. And they had similar or better secondary outcomes. So, again, it could be confounded with the weight loss. But, these were free-living women. They weren't perfectly compliant.
And, again, I am unhappy with the total amount of carbs considered low-carb. I don't think 34.5% or 138 grams/day on average really qualifies as "low-carb" but it's what the people actually ate when on their own. They started out averaging 61 grams a day, which is significantly better than where they eventually ended up. Long-term compliance is probably a much larger confounder than calorie counting.0 -
I personally think LC > LF, and I think the studies back that up. But I also think most of the beneficial health effects come from losing body fat, not because of the carb restriction. Any way you can lose body fat long term is a Good Thing.
The "metabolic repair" view of LCHF is interesting, but I'm not sure it's established science yet.
And even if LCHF had proven-beyond-a-doubt health benefits (which it seems to for a few things), I'm not sure it's a diet I could adhere to for the long term.1 -
You're right, but that's the problem with diets. Very few people stick with them, and I'm not aware of any studies that followed people who adhered to LC for years.
To me, that's an argument to continue logging. We need all the help we can get.
We may not have very many studies, but we do have people who have done low carb diets for years. We even have people who have done the stricter forms like ketogenic diets for over a decade. Then we have whole populations who exist on almost no carbs, and they have survived for generations.
It can be long term. That things go back to bad when people go back to their old habits, should be a given.1 -
The question here is whether calorie counting is useful when on a diet that doesn't rely on calorie restriction. For the Eskimo, I'd say no.
For the rest of us, surrounded by delicious and inexpensive treats, good restaurants, social gatherings, and free donuts and pizza in the meeting room? It'd be hard to be a good Eskimo in my world, so I'll count calories.1 -
I don't think that's the question at all. The question is why should we be counting calories when on a low-carb diet. There might be valid reasons to count. I don't think donuts, pizza, and such treats that are high-carb would be a reason. You're not supposed to be eating those.
We, well I, am looking for a thread of support for why we should count anything more than carbs. Why should we have a calorie goal while eating low carb? Tangentially, but related, should someone also track macros (aside from the obvious carbs alone)?
What you do when/if you leave low-carb and go back to eating a high[er] carb diet isn't really relevant to this. Actually, that's something I am going to be including the the anti-counting thread. It's what to do when not counting isn't working, and the first thing will be to go even lower on carbs. Have you been allowing some fruit (or god forbid a donut) each week? Cut it out. Give it time and see if that helps. Still not working? Whittle those carbs down even more. Counting calories is the very last thing I'd recommend. That's when all else has failed.1 -
I guess this is why there are diet debates.
We know the LF propaganda well.
The LC books say LF has failed us -- it's carbs that are evil, not fat. Taubes even goes so far as saying that the low-fat diets that did show health benefits were LC diets in disguise. All you need to do is count carbs, and zero is the best count. The pendulum has swung far.
The truth might be somewhere in the middle. The problem is being in a continuous state of excess calorie consumption. Our bodies can handle excess calories, but not continuously. Carbs, especially processed carbs, make it very easy to enter this state. So carbs are evil, but it's because they put us in this hypercaloric state.
Maybe that's not even an official camp yet, but I'm in this camp. Count calories and avoid evil carbs as much as possible. Count 'em both.
For calories, we can guestimate how many we should have, and it's easy to adjust that number if we continue to gain weight.
For counting carbs, most people make a guess and have no mechanism to adjust that number if they're wrong. It only really makes sense to count carbs if you have a rational target based on measuring the carb-specific effects on you (blood sugar, ketones, whatever). And I'm not knocking guestimates -- it's what I do myself, but I'm more confident about calorie counts being meaningful.
I count them both. I set my calorie target on the usual metrics. I set my carb target on my past diet experiments and lipid profiles before and after. I confess that my own past diet experiments were confounded by weight loss that I wasn't tracking, so my carb target may be crazy. 2 -
Everyone counts one way or another if they have ever jointed MFP.
I weigh daily and count if I start gaining weight. Like I went up on a snow day and when I back tracked I figured out I have 3 pounds of almonds while at the computer all day. I did not need that extra 5000 calories that day or the extra 90 grams of net carbs.
Now that I have stopped 'dieting' and moved to a new 'eating lifestyle' I do not use any practices that I do not see myself doing 40 years from now. Perhaps being 64 I have just learned enough about myself so as to know what I am willing to do and not to do long term.
Again everyone counts calories directly or indirectly that log into MFP. 1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Again everyone counts calories directly or indirectly that log into MFP.
Assuming everyone logs everything they eat. Some people only log veggies or carb-containing foods. Some don't log anything at all. You're only getting a complete calorie count if your log is complete.
Also, I think we're more talking about "counting" in the sense of having a specific calorie goal and endeavoring to stop eating if you exceed that goal. I logged for months without counting, in the sense that I didn't care if I hit 1,500 or 15,000 each day. I was recording the food just as a record for my data analysis. I think we might need to make that clear, since one of the most pertinent points seems to be "I want data" and stuff like that.
I don't think tracking for the purposes of just getting raw data is bad. I think it can be if you're basing eating decisions on the amount of calories you've eaten that day, the amount of calories in a specific food, and the amount of calories you've arbitrarily decided to stay under. It's this second part which I'm hoping this thread finds reasons to defend. Why should we have a calorie goal? Why should be try and eat under (or around) a certain amount? That's what I mean by counting. Not just logging and knowing the amount you ate.
0 -
A decade ago I was 60#s overweight and didn't need to count. But at only 15-20#s over where I want to be on a relatively small frame the calories matter, too. If I don't count calories, too, I stall.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »Again everyone counts calories directly or indirectly that log into MFP.
Assuming everyone logs everything they eat. Some people only log veggies or carb-containing foods. Some don't log anything at all. You're only getting a complete calorie count if your log is complete.
Also, I think we're more talking about "counting" in the sense of having a specific calorie goal and endeavoring to stop eating if you exceed that goal. I logged for months without counting, in the sense that I didn't care if I hit 1,500 or 15,000 each day. I was recording the food just as a record for my data analysis. I think we might need to make that clear, since one of the most pertinent points seems to be "I want data" and stuff like that.
I don't think tracking for the purposes of just getting raw data is bad. I think it can be if you're basing eating decisions on the amount of calories you've eaten that day, the amount of calories in a specific food, and the amount of calories you've arbitrarily decided to stay under. It's this second part which I'm hoping this thread finds reasons to defend. Why should we have a calorie goal? Why should be try and eat under (or around) a certain amount? That's what I mean by counting. Not just logging and knowing the amount you ate.
This is something I think can make it dangerous for newbies. I've lost count how many times I've seen someone shocked to find out eggs have carbs, or someone switches brands of sausage or cheese, and has a rant when they find out the new ones have carbs where the old ones didn't...after they've had them a dozen times. It is, IMO, making the learning curve harder. After a few years, you just know to check the label on everything, even if it's something you've had before, because formulas and packaging sizes change. It's not really something that comes instinctively unless you're already used to watching for allergens.0 -
Preface: Body needs energy, energy is in form of calories, body can store energy as fat when excess is given to it. This is the human gas tank.
Begin rant
Alright, here's why we need a calorie goal.
EXCESS calories, no matter in what form, are stored by the body as fat. You're body expends barely more energy getting it's energy from fat than from table sugar, our cells are remarkably efficient that way. (Look up the Kreb's cycle and cellular respiration) Therefore, those of us who want/need to lose weight must EAT AT A DEFICIT(barring certain medical conditions/freaky biology).
This is basic biology, and honestly, those of us who's cells perform the process of cellular respiration at a fairly standard rate(MOST PEOPLE) are going to be subject to the standard interpretation that cico gives. That is, multiply goal weight by 10, eat that number of calories per day.
Yes, there are exceptions to this. But they are just that.
Goat, you look remarkably healthy, but d@mnit you are a freaking biological anomaly! As a bio major I can't explain how the h*ll you work. Kudos to you man for being the outlier on that bell shaped curve. For most of us though, we fall on the bell.
This is why we need a calorie goal.
End rant
1 -
People who don't read nutrition labels are likely to incorrectly log regardless of whether they log things like eggs or not. The amount in eggs is pretty inconsequential. Even a dozen eggs would be like 5g total.
sweetteadrinker, I'm not denying that calories in must be lower than calories out to lose weight. I'm denying the idea that we need to help our body decide the calories in side of the equation. If we eat when hungry, until we're not hungry, and just listen to our body, it will moderate hunger and metabolic rate to the degree it needs to for natural weight normalization. It may not be as fast as many people want, but over time, the amount of body fat will stabilize around a healthy amount for that person. Pushing yourself lower than that will typically require you to actively force yourself to eat less.
I am also denying the fact that if you eat more calories than your body initially may have needed that the inevitable conclusion is that those calories must be stored as fat. There are many things your body can do with the extra calories (rebuild tissue, remineralize bone, raise your temp, make you fidget or want to walk, etc.) besides just store them as fat. And, if you happen to have excess fat stores already, storing extra calories as more fat will be very low on that list... a last resort if you will. When there's nothing else the body can do, no other way to spend the excess calories, nothing more productive that the energy could be spent on, the excess calories will have to be stored as fat. The problem is your body determines where the cut-off for EXCESS calories really occurs, and you can't easily predict that amount to self-determine where to stop eating.
Likewise, if you under-eat, trying to force your body to burn fat, it can choose to do other things before spending fat. Now, low-carb happens to help prevent this, but you don't really get an idea of where your body's metabolic flexibility comes to an end and fat burning must start.
Edit: I am an anomaly... this is confusing to even myself. Frankly, by eating over my expected maintenance calories, I expect to maintain my current weight. My body seems to be deciding that I have no idea what I am talking about. And either my TDEE is much higher than expected (unlikely... considering that I had a BMI of nearly 40 before low-carb), or something else is going on.0 -
People who don't read nutrition labels are likely to incorrectly log regardless of whether they log things like eggs or not. The amount in eggs is pretty inconsequential. Even a dozen eggs would be like 5g total.
sweetteadrinker, I'm not denying that calories in must be lower than calories out to lose weight. I'm denying the idea that we need to help our body decide the calories in side of the equation. If we eat when hungry, until we're not hungry, and just listen to our body, it will moderate hunger and metabolic rate to the degree it needs to for natural weight normalization. It may not be as fast as many people want, but over time, the amount of body fat will stabilize around a healthy amount for that person. Pushing yourself lower than that will typically require you to actively force yourself to eat less.
I am also denying the fact that if you eat more calories than your body initially may have needed that the inevitable conclusion is that those calories must be stored as fat. There are many things your body can do with the extra calories (rebuild tissue, remineralize bone, raise your temp, make you fidget or want to walk, etc.) besides just store them as fat. And, if you happen to have excess fat stores already, storing extra calories as more fat will be very low on that list... a last resort if you will.
Edit: I am an anomaly... this is confusing to even myself. Frankly, by eating over my expected maintenance calories, I expect to maintain my current weight. My body seems to be deciding that I have no idea what I am talking about. And either my TDEE is much higher than expected (unlikely... considering that I had a BMI of nearly 40 before low-carb), or something else is going on.
Not trying to hijack, but have you ever had a fat analysis done? Maybe you're overestimating your BF%, so you're not really eating at a surplus, but it looks like you are.0
