We need a "Pro Calorie Counting" thread/discussion
Replies
-
We've all been on the eat-all-you-want no-calorie-counting diet before. That's how we got here.
1 -
It would be a leap of faith. In Taubes we trust. Personally, I'm still weighing the evidence. A pretty good counter to Taubes is "The Low Carb Myth" book, but both sides cherry pick their studies.
If there were a definitive test for "metabolic damage" and "metabolic healing," then it'd be an easier step for others to take.0 -
It would be a leap of faith. In Taubes we trust. Personally, I'm still weighing the evidence.
I dont know it has to be an all or nothing proposition. Start low carb, like Fit_Goat do under 100g a day to begin, if you are above that. If you are lower, than just try lower carbs and still count calories. Then in a few weeks go lower and still count. You might find that at the end you are happy Keto and counting, or happy Keto and not counting, or happy in a LCHF but not-quite keto.
It is all about what works for you at this time in your life. It may not work 5 years from now or 20 years from now, or it might. Just as life changes, so can your diet to suit your needs and lifestyle and you can ALWAYS reevaluate that as you go along.
You dont have to jump into dark side with both feet and go less than 5g a day right away, or ever for that matter.1 -
I guess the basic premise of Not Counting is really two-fold:
1) LC = high-satiety. You'll naturally eat at a deficit. This is pretty widely accepted, but studies seem to suggest it's a fairly short-lived phenomenon. Maybe hunger increases due to weight loss. Maybe because carb intake got too high. If the latter, then what is the carb cut-off for Not Counting based on high satiety to work?
2) If you "heal" your metabolism with low carbs, you can eat till you're full, and your metabolic rate will increase to adjust for any "overage." This is more controversial, but seems to be the Taubes-style spin. No need to debate it here, but it still should be qualified. How do you know when you're good to go? Ketosis?
What Goat seems to be suggesting is to let your body find its natural level from the start of your new diet. He's really arguing for Not Counting right off the bat, if I understand him correctly.
That requires a leap of faith. A faith in Taubes. A faith in the "quality" of your diet. A faith that gaining a bunch of weight in the coming months will naturally reverse itself at some point.
That's a lot of faith.
The FIT_Goat Not-Counting diet seems like a very worthy approach, but I sort of view it as another branch of LC. Or at least a fairly specific implementation of LC. (Or in some cases of "quality diet," not even necessarily LC.)0 -
I guess the basic premise of Not Counting is really two-fold:
1) LC = high-satiety. You'll naturally eat at a deficit. This is pretty widely accepted, but studies seem to suggest it's a fairly short-lived phenomenon. Maybe hunger increases due to weight loss. Maybe because carb intake got too high. If the latter, then what is the carb cut-off for Not Counting based on high satiety to work?
2) If you "heal" your metabolism with low carbs, you can eat till you're full, and your metabolic rate will increase to adjust for any "overage." This is more controversial, but seems to be the Taubes-style spin. No need to debate it here, but it still should be qualified. How do you know when you're good to go? Ketosis?
What Goat seems to be suggesting is to let your body find its natural level from the start of your new diet. He's really arguing for Not Counting right off the bat, if I understand him correctly.
That requires a leap of faith. A faith in Taubes. A faith in the "quality" of your diet. A faith that gaining a bunch of weight in the coming months will naturally reverse itself at some point.
That's a lot of faith.
Yep, that's pretty much exactly what I am suggesting. Of course, it's not a requirement in faith forever. It's a "test it for yourself" kind of faith. What's the worst that can happen? Can you really do that much worse than the SAD diet? Heck, I once had a 3-month period where I fell off the wagon (trying a low calorie diet) and gained back a bunch of weight. I ate so much because I was starving all the time. Could a three month trial of not restricting (go ahead and log... just don't cut yourself off) really put you in a worse spot than falling off the wagon?
Granted, no one wants to fall off the wagon, and relapse is a scary thought. But, you could always start counting and restricting your calories and take it off. It may set you back a few months, but you'll still be able to lose the original amount of weight you intended.
0 -
Instead of a Pro Counting thread, you might want to simply present the No Counting as a challenge. Present the argument, encourage people to sign up for it and support each other (I gained 20lbs -- eeek!), and log the results as a crowd-sourced experiment.
I might even sign up for it. 0 -
That would be really a fun idea. Maybe we could set that up. Should we still allow logging? Just no calorie goals/limits? What sort of time period should we set it for?
Now, I am still looking to create a really balanced approach to both sides of the calorie counting argument. Obviously, I am very biased. LOL, this is why I am looking for other people to present the arguments for this side. We want to have two posts, one for each side, for new people. That way they can make their own decision about which makes sense for them.0 -
I guess the basic premise of Not Counting is really two-fold:
1) LC = high-satiety. You'll naturally eat at a deficit. This is pretty widely accepted, but studies seem to suggest it's a fairly short-lived phenomenon. Maybe hunger increases due to weight loss. Maybe because carb intake got too high. If the latter, then what is the carb cut-off for Not Counting based on high satiety to work?
2) If you "heal" your metabolism with low carbs, you can eat till you're full, and your metabolic rate will increase to adjust for any "overage." This is more controversial, but seems to be the Taubes-style spin. No need to debate it here, but it still should be qualified. How do you know when you're good to go? Ketosis?
What Goat seems to be suggesting is to let your body find its natural level from the start of your new diet. He's really arguing for Not Counting right off the bat, if I understand him correctly.
That requires a leap of faith. A faith in Taubes. A faith in the "quality" of your diet. A faith that gaining a bunch of weight in the coming months will naturally reverse itself at some point.
That's a lot of faith.
The FIT_Goat Not-Counting diet seems like a very worthy approach, but I sort of view it as another branch of LC. Or at least a fairly specific implementation of LC. (Or in some cases of "quality diet," not even necessarily LC.)
I think that satiety issue needs more research. After 15 years, I still don't get hungry as long as my carbs are low enough. Not hours at a time, ever. If it was short lived, I should've had normal hunger cues come back about 14 years ago. The only time they do is if I get out of keto range and into generic "LC" range. When I get back to the 40s on down, no hunger, and I base when to eat or stop eating more on things like how much I've had for the day and what time it is.
I think there may be something to the suggestion of people slowly adding back in carbs and eventually hitting that point where hunger returns. It makes sense, considering so many people arrive at LC by way of Atkins, which is specifically set up to do it that way.
If that's the case, it would stand to reason the cut-off point would be the same point where someone can maintain long term keto (usually higher than the number people use to get into it at first). That number will vary by person for all the dozens of other factors that play into everything else. It's still not foolproof though, since I managed to gain while staying in full keto, which means I was under 40, actually more around 18-20 when I started tracking again.0 -
Well, a real experiment would have your LCNC (low-carb no-counting) group, and a LCPC group, and then a control group from the unwashed masses of MFP. No time limit. Just let it run forever and let people join whenever they're ready to start.
Keep it simple -- maybe just a check-in thread with carbs, calories, and weight. The LCNC group would have to be trusted to not use their calorie count to influence their diet (just failed peer review right there). Shouldn't be too hard to write a script to build a table of results.0 -
Yeah, it would never pass peer review. Although what would be considered success? If the LCNC group lost more weight? Equal weight? Any weight at all?
There's also a lot of confounders. There's nothing to stop people from intentionally trying to over-eat, and thus changing the normal results. Some people just won't eat if they know their calories are going to be super high. I love to post my 4,000+ calorie days. It's like a high score for me. Some people would be terrified to see that number and back out well before they get above 3k. There's nothing I can do to prevent that.
I'll think about it. Might make it as a group. That way we could have different check-in threads for the two main groups (don't see pulling people from the general MFP area) into it.0 -
A lot of the reasons to count already listed apply to me, but one I didn't see ---
* Count in order to keep protein in check.
Per Phinney/Volek and others, protein should be within a certain range based on your weight, body comp, and activity ... if I don't count then my protein tends to skyrocket as I approach my calorie goal.0 -
Although what would be considered success? If the LCNC group lost more weight? Equal weight? Any weight at all?
Success = getting people to try your approach, ideally with a low attrition rate.
More success = we get some data to see how your approach compares with mainstream approachs
Even more success = nobody gets hurt or fat
1 -
LOL... the biggest hurdle will probably be the first one. I'd like to get people to commit to a something like one of the two things below. Then keeping them coming back on a weekly/semi-weekly basis to check in will be the next hurdle.
* Most people: 35 days minimum (Premature escape clause: up 10+ lbs)
* More ideally: 91 days minimum (Premature escape clause: up 10+ lbs or up 5+ lbs after 60 days)
A person who gains 10+ lbs or is still up 5+ lbs after 60 days, will be considered failure, if they elect to leave at that point. If they decide to stay and the weight comes off, even if outside the 35/91 days, then it will be considered a success but a point about initial struggle.
People who leave before the 35/91 day point will be considered attrition and should be compared to the expected attrition for most other diets (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7212881) 50% at 6 weeks, 70% at 12 weeks. Obviously, 91 days is better because we have a percentage to compare it to (12 weeks is 84 days... if we can beat 70% at 91 days then we did pretty good). Or we could just shoot for 42 days (6 weeks).
I doubt anyone will get hurt. I can't imagine how eating when you're hungry could hurt you. I could imagine that some might gain weight, hopefully in the short term and it comes off. I believe I have set reasonable limits on the amount of weight gain for someone to choose to leave as it isn't working for them. I wouldn't have someone commit to 91 days and expect them to stay around gaining 10 pounds a month.0 -
LOL... the biggest hurdle will probably be the first one. I'd like to get people to commit to a something like one of the two things below. Then keeping them coming back on a weekly/semi-weekly basis to check in will be the next hurdle.
* Most people: 35 days minimum (Premature escape clause: up 10+ lbs)
* More ideally: 91 days minimum (Premature escape clause: up 10+ lbs or up 5+ lbs after 60 days)
A person who gains 10+ lbs or is still up 5+ lbs after 60 days, will be considered failure, if they elect to leave at that point. If they decide to stay and the weight comes off, even if outside the 35/91 days, then it will be considered a success but a point about initial struggle.
People who leave before the 35/91 day point will be considered attrition and should be compared to the expected attrition for most other diets (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7212881) 50% at 6 weeks, 70% at 12 weeks. Obviously, 91 days is better because we have a percentage to compare it to (12 weeks is 84 days... if we can beat 70% at 91 days then we did pretty good). Or we could just shoot for 42 days (6 weeks).
I doubt anyone will get hurt. I can't imagine how eating when you're hungry could hurt you. I could imagine that some might gain weight, hopefully in the short term and it comes off. I believe I have set reasonable limits on the amount of weight gain for someone to choose to leave as it isn't working for them. I wouldn't have someone commit to 91 days and expect them to stay around gaining 10 pounds a month.
I bet if you looked in /r/keto, you might find some takers. I've seen a few threads going back and forth about track vs not track lately.0 -
If you want to motivate people, find a way to structure it something like the Couch-to-5K program. Make it 5 weeks or so, but give people weekly milestones. Short-term targeted milestones will keep people on track.
Do they need to ease into this or just start eating at the all-you-can-eat rib joint on day 1?1 -
Instead of a Pro Counting thread, you might want to simply present the No Counting as a challenge. Present the argument, encourage people to sign up for it and support each other (I gained 20lbs -- eeek!), and log the results as a crowd-sourced experiment.
I might even sign up for it.
Actually, there is already a group like that here, sorta:
Eat More to Weigh Less describes how to reset your metabolism and recommends heavy lifting to build muscle so you can eat more and burn the cals you take in without gaining. But first you do the eat-more-to-reset step. I think the aim was to help people with eating disorders? Have not looked at it in a while.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/3817-eat-more-2-weigh-less
This next group seems to be dormant, but there is a spreadsheet (made by @Heybales?) attached to it that guides you to calculate your calorie needs to get where you want to be ideally. I tried eating more but ended up gaining a bit and got scared
so am back to counting.... forever in limbo!
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/3088-eating-for-future-you0 -
I eat 1-3 pot luck meals most weeks and talking about a wild card when it comes to what is in those dishes and that is not even looking at more than the meats and vegetables. The dessert tables are just plain wicked.
Eyeballing the calories/carbs in a home made dish is very iffy even at 64.
I think the one last night knocked me out of ketosis and all I had was fried chicken, green beans, lima beans and green peas and unsweetened ice tea.
0 -
I will work on compiling reasons. I don't think you need to completely give up carbs to stop counting. Some people can eat 50g and effortlessly lose/maintain. Some people can eat even more than that. Some people need to eat less. Think of those thin people who never gain a pound but eat tons of carbs. They're not as sensitive as those of us who gain weight eating carbs. You'll need to cut down your carbs until you find the level you can personally handle.
I don't think you have to just eat steaks of give up veggies (probably) or other stuff. It all depends. Personally, I can't eat without counting if I include sugar alcohols, tons of veggies, and lots of cheese. If I cut those out, I have no problem. The more I include, the more likely I am to stop losing or even gain. I could eat some veggies without gaining. I just choose not to.
Do some people gain weight when they stop counting? Yeah. It happens. The body prioritizes healing first. One woman, who has eaten like me for years, gained weight for 6 months when she first started. Yep, six months. I don't know how she didn't give up. After that, she started losing weight. She lost all she gained. She didn't initially go carnivore for weight loss purposes though. Here's the experience in her own words.I gained about forty pounds in those six months before it started to reverse...though, looking back at pictures, I swear, you would never guess that it was that much. Also, I was VERY calorie restricted before I started ZC and was exercising a MINIMUM of two hours every single day. I weighed about the same amount that I do now (before started ZC) but I looked so much more gaunt back then.
When ZC gave me the green light to "eat until full", I went for it! I ate and ate and ate! I was STARVING!! So, yes, I gained for six months. My weight gain leveled off right around the six month mark when my appetite leveled off...Finally! I started having more energy and less appetite. I felt GOOD! And then, the weight started coming off quickly! Within a few months, I looked better than I ever had! And felt better, too!
I imagine that few people here could do that. All it would take is a ten pound gain to panic them and call an end to not counting. Of course, this is not a typical experience. Few people start this way of eating near their ideal weight. The heavier you are, the less likely you are to gain. The weight loss might be slower, which can be a problem. Or it can stall. It's less predictable. It takes patience and a fair amount of trust in the science behind it, for those times when you're not seeing what you want.
Do I think most people think (or are scared) it won't work? Yes. But, why wouldn't they think that? We've seen what happens when we don't count. That's how we ended up here. All of our experience tells us that not counting and controlling food makes us fat. Counting and controlling it can work (at least for a while) and it's hard to give that up. I was there. The idea of not counting was just too much for me when I started. It was only after a few months of keto that I decided to let my calories ride (still tracking... just in case) and see where the average ended up.
I don't really fault anyone for counting. I know I present my side very strongly, but I do have compassion for their position. Especially if you've lost some weight on calorie restriction, found yourself stalled, moved to low-carb (counting) and finally seen the scale start moving again, and maybe tried to not count and gained (or stopped losing). At that point, you'd pretty much have to believe that it won't work for you.
Anyway, that's my basic thinking right now, off the top of my head.
@FIT_Goat I find this whole line of thinking intriguing. I am still adapting fully into Keto, and I refuse to restrict. If I'm hungry, and it's not some form of emotional/boredom eating, I'm going to eat. As an example, my default calorie range here is around 1870. Yesterday, I was hungry all day, so I ate. I ate high fat, moderate protein, and low carb - and a lot of it. It all came out to approximately 2995 calories. But I'm not going to sweat it. I'm sure there was some odd reason my body needed the food, and as we've said here, as long as the general trend is good, I'm going to keep on with it. Considering how much my mental clarity and energy improved, I think I **might** be okay gaining for a bit, if I could feel like I was repairing my metabolic system. I've never felt that uber restriction was the way to go anyway. I do track right now, but mainly because I'm so new to the program that I'm not overly familiar with the carbs and such in everything... I hope that I can keep up a level of perseverance and patience, as your friend did.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »I will work on compiling reasons. I don't think you need to completely give up carbs to stop counting. Some people can eat 50g and effortlessly lose/maintain. Some people can eat even more than that. Some people need to eat less. Think of those thin people who never gain a pound but eat tons of carbs. They're not as sensitive as those of us who gain weight eating carbs. You'll need to cut down your carbs until you find the level you can personally handle.
I don't think you have to just eat steaks of give up veggies (probably) or other stuff. It all depends. Personally, I can't eat without counting if I include sugar alcohols, tons of veggies, and lots of cheese. If I cut those out, I have no problem. The more I include, the more likely I am to stop losing or even gain. I could eat some veggies without gaining. I just choose not to.
Do some people gain weight when they stop counting? Yeah. It happens. The body prioritizes healing first. One woman, who has eaten like me for years, gained weight for 6 months when she first started. Yep, six months. I don't know how she didn't give up. After that, she started losing weight. She lost all she gained. She didn't initially go carnivore for weight loss purposes though. Here's the experience in her own words.I gained about forty pounds in those six months before it started to reverse...though, looking back at pictures, I swear, you would never guess that it was that much. Also, I was VERY calorie restricted before I started ZC and was exercising a MINIMUM of two hours every single day. I weighed about the same amount that I do now (before started ZC) but I looked so much more gaunt back then.
When ZC gave me the green light to "eat until full", I went for it! I ate and ate and ate! I was STARVING!! So, yes, I gained for six months. My weight gain leveled off right around the six month mark when my appetite leveled off...Finally! I started having more energy and less appetite. I felt GOOD! And then, the weight started coming off quickly! Within a few months, I looked better than I ever had! And felt better, too!
I imagine that few people here could do that. All it would take is a ten pound gain to panic them and call an end to not counting. Of course, this is not a typical experience. Few people start this way of eating near their ideal weight. The heavier you are, the less likely you are to gain. The weight loss might be slower, which can be a problem. Or it can stall. It's less predictable. It takes patience and a fair amount of trust in the science behind it, for those times when you're not seeing what you want.
Do I think most people think (or are scared) it won't work? Yes. But, why wouldn't they think that? We've seen what happens when we don't count. That's how we ended up here. All of our experience tells us that not counting and controlling food makes us fat. Counting and controlling it can work (at least for a while) and it's hard to give that up. I was there. The idea of not counting was just too much for me when I started. It was only after a few months of keto that I decided to let my calories ride (still tracking... just in case) and see where the average ended up.
I don't really fault anyone for counting. I know I present my side very strongly, but I do have compassion for their position. Especially if you've lost some weight on calorie restriction, found yourself stalled, moved to low-carb (counting) and finally seen the scale start moving again, and maybe tried to not count and gained (or stopped losing). At that point, you'd pretty much have to believe that it won't work for you.
Anyway, that's my basic thinking right now, off the top of my head.
@FIT_Goat I find this whole line of thinking intriguing. I am still adapting fully into Keto, and I refuse to restrict. If I'm hungry, and it's not some form of emotional/boredom eating, I'm going to eat. As an example, my default calorie range here is around 1870. Yesterday, I was hungry all day, so I ate. I ate high fat, moderate protein, and low carb - and a lot of it. It all came out to approximately 2995 calories. But I'm not going to sweat it. I'm sure there was some odd reason my body needed the food, and as we've said here, as long as the general trend is good, I'm going to keep on with it. Considering how much my mental clarity and energy improved, I think I **might** be okay gaining for a bit, if I could feel like I was repairing my metabolic system. I've never felt that uber restriction was the way to go anyway. I do track right now, but mainly because I'm so new to the program that I'm not overly familiar with the carbs and such in everything... I hope that I can keep up a level of perseverance and patience, as your friend did.
I'm slowly getting to this point as well. I can't eat as low as MFP wants me to and still be a decent person to be around . Sunday was my hunger day, probably because I did a bodyweight workout on Saturday. I'm not sure but I was hungry all day so I ate within the confines of LCHF. I'm not completely there yet because, like Goat says, as soon as the number gets to a certain level I panic and immediately want to remove 500 calories. This is the merry-go-round I've been on for years. I'm continuing on with this WOE, though, and tracking for the sake of tracking, not for the sake of calorie control but I have to force it. It is nowhere near second nature.
I keep thinking of this period novel I was reading a few weeks ago where the lady wanted to get back into her pre-baby clothes. The time period of the book meant no one knew about calories, or if they did it was the medical community and not the general population. She just ate a little less than she had been until she fit into her dress again. People lost weight before calorie counting so why do I feel like I need to count in order to lose, know what I mean?0 -
I often wonder why people of that time period seemed to eat multi-course dinners every day, go for a brief and definitely non-aerobic stroll around the nearest park and always remain reed slim. Though I suppose they couldn't eat much in those corsets! And there were no processed foods.
Sorry - please return to the actual topic
0 -
GrannyMayOz wrote: »I often wonder why people of that time period seemed to eat multi-course dinners every day, go for a brief and definitely non-aerobic stroll around the nearest park and always remain reed slim. Though I suppose they couldn't eat much in those corsets! And there were no processed foods.
Sorry - please return to the actual topic
True! Though from what I've read the course were light, and probably smaller portioned. And then some fool went and invented the corset. I'm sure that answered a lot of "weight" issues, lol.0 -
I'd rather be 'full figured' than strangled *nodding*0
-
Reasons I count:
1) I eat the number of calories for the weight I want to be. If I exercise, I eat more, but I still have to be careful because I get REALLY hungry after exercise.
2) I'm OCD and a data analyst. Counting keeps me mindful and on track.
3) My body's satiety signaling system is still messed up. If I don't count, I will eat too much and then feel very icky.
4) I'm retraining myself on realistic volume/sizing.0 -
OK, Goat. Now that I have a better understanding of your reasoning for this thread, I think what you're really looking for are anti-Taubes arguments.
Start here with obesity researcher Stephan Guyenet:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
And there's the book I mentioned earlier:
The Low Carb Myth
The arguments are pro-calorie-deficit. They would warn you that fat generally doesn't have higher satiety than slow carbs, and that you can easily overeat.0 -
My main set back with trying to drop the lbs is emotional eating. I will recognize when I'm not hungry, but I will still want to eat something. Counting keeps me in check. If I have to log it, and I see how many calories it is, it helps me to stop the emotional eating. In the moment of the craving, it's very hard to stop the behavior of eating. Having to log it keeps me honest. I need to answer to something for this behavior so I can work on it to make it better.
I'm also a science minded person (High School Biology Teacher), so knowing numbers and seeing results is kinda one of my things. My body is my experiment, and I need numbers to compare for my results.1 -
By upping my fats over and over and daily, my emotional eating is mostly resolved... I just find LCHF friendly items to meet the same craving... I can't even imagine going back to some of the old foods I used to want to live off of ....1
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »I think the one last night knocked me out of ketosis and all I had was fried chicken, green beans, lima beans and green peas and unsweetened ice tea.
This was a surprise?
0 -
Pretty much. I want reasons that people should consider counting, as opposed to the ones I give saying they should consider not counting.OK, Goat. Now that I have a better understanding of your reasoning for this thread, I think what you're really looking for are anti-Taubes arguments.
Start here with obesity researcher Stephan Guyenet:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
And there's the book I mentioned earlier:
The Low Carb Myth
The arguments are pro-calorie-deficit. They would warn you that fat generally doesn't have higher satiety than slow carbs, and that you can easily overeat.
I can't get that book right now. Can you sum up the major points and contentions it has with low carb being used with ad libitum eating?
0 -
First, if anybody buys the book, be prepared for fairly rational arguments against most of the low-carb beliefs. They're presented with scientific backing, but IMHO, the author cherry-picks his studies and uses a pretty vitriolic tone which will turn off many people.
The main premise can probably be summed up as: insulin isn't evil, it just signals the body that glucose is available. Industrialized society is evil for making the stuff we eat. Our brain dictates what we eat, and it hasn't evolved for the world we live in.
The studies presented are mostly those that show low-carb and low-fat diet results are similar when the calorie deficit is similar.
In the end, the recommendations aren't that much different than, say, Bailor, Paleo, etc.
But the difference is that they go into the brain/behavioral aspects, like:- The reward value of food. Beware of pleasure!
- Food variety. Boring can be good for you.
- Avoid micronutrient deficiencies, but not with supplements. Getting this right may boost your metabolism.
- Protein = high-satiety = good weight-loss food.
- Eat lots of plants.
- Metabolic health = avoid constant low-cal, low-carb diets. Sleep well, etc.
- Sustainability.
Similar to other books, they suggest ways to address these points, but the implication is that if you're on a low-carb diet, it'll work as long as you're in a calorie deficit, and lots of protein will make that easier.0
