why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
-
Thread title: "Why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?"
I'm not sure that most of them don't, and I'd hesitate to make a sweeping assumption based on forum discussions. Remember breakfast guy? I wouldn't take a debate with him and similarly inclined to say that the "breakfast-murdered-my-family" crowd doesn't believe in CICO .
Of course there are always going to be people who have differing views about weight loss, but my (limited) experience with diehard low-carbers is that, to make a generalization myself, they enjoy their approach because it is an effective way for them to eliminate calorically dense foods, eat more volume of less-calorically dense foods and so satiate with less calories, and achieve a deficit. Also, the water weight loss that comes initially with reducing carbs, especially radically reducing them, is sometimes great motivation for folks, especially those that have struggled to see the scale move.
Not a low-carber myself, but that macro definitely takes the major hit when I move to cutting, mostly because I consider protein king when cutting for a variety of reasons, and reducing carb intake is a better way for me to achieve a deficit, feel reasonably satiated, and still prioritize protein for lean mass retention.
Again, I wouldn't take some interchanges with folks who are low-carbing it to mean that most of a significant percentage of them don't understand CICO and it's implications for fat loss.0 -
Na i reckon carbs give the best gains honestly. Look at how big ive gotten and 130
-
billieljaime wrote: »let me clarify that if one has to do low carb due to medical condition then I totally get that….
From the information/polls/discussions on the LCHF boards and forums, the majority of those doing LCHF have a medical condition, many didnt find out until after they started and then went to ask a doctor why, when calories were the same, they lost weight on LCHF and not on a SAD. Insulin is a hormone, so often if you have PCOS, IR, metabolic syndrome, etc LCHF is often, but not always for everybody, the only way ppl with those issues can lose weight without eating less than 1200 calories a day and exercising most of those off.
Many on LCHF can listen to their bodies and stop eating when full and arent emotional eaters, so they can not count calories and lose weight. Many have to still count calories tho because they cant read their bodies signals or emotional/boredom eat.
I am not going to debate the science, new studies, information out there about whether or not LCHF is better than a SAD. I am not in a position to whip out fancy studies and talk all geekish.
But just giving you some info on why many on the LCHF boards/forums/etc can eat more than they could on a SAD and still lose weight, often more weight than they did eating a SAD.
Because youre misinformed about a low carb diet
u think it is meat drowing in a frying pan of oil
what i remember doing it was healthy lean meats supplemented with green veg and homemade salad dressings, low sodium bacons simmered in their own juices, I would then use that juice to pan sere singe servings of lean meat.
Vegetables are highly endorsed on LCHF diets along with berries, nuts and such. Many people get cught up in the "meat" aspect of LCHF they forget and neglect the other component which is FIBER found in the leafy green veggies they are supposed to be eating.
I am not sure which LCHF diet you did, but most now endorse low carb, high fat, adequate protein. So fatty meats along with the full sodium bacon. Fiber can cause issues with some on the meds for IR so dont eat any or very little fiber and have no problem with potty or other issues.
There are a lot of ppl coming into LCHF thinking it will fix everything and that you are supposed to increase protein instead of fats. Hopefully discussions like this will help people to not jump so hard on the new ones who ask.1 -
necktweaker wrote: »
Virtually no carbs so losing water weight, plus fat and protein tend to be filling so you easily could have eaten fewer calories that you'd think would be in what you ate.
Exactly this. On low carb you lose around 5-15 lb of water weight within the first 1-2 weeks. After that, you can easily continue to lose weight solely because you are much more satiated. Also, going low carb means that you cannot eat the more calorically dense foods that most people eat. So, while many low carbers think they are eating a ton of food, they are confusing volume with calories. It is true that they are consuming a much larger volume of food (depending on how they plan low carb), but usually less calories overall.
And with regards to energy levels on low-carb, when I went keto it took me about a month of strict keto before I had any energy. The body has to adapt to using ketones.
That's one more of those "facts" that gets thrown around that simply isn't. Anyone starting any different way of eating loses water weight the first week. Some people will lose 10 the first week on pure IIFYM, and someone else will lose 2 on keto. It's just as likely that both or neither lost a lb that week as it is that the first lost 4 and the other lost none. There are people who go on LC and lose nothing for the first month, not even the legendary water weight, because there are other health factors involved that they may not even be aware of.
Also, why do you insist people are "confused?" Keto food is generally more calorie dense, therefore lower volume, not the other way around. You need a lot of broccoli to match the calories in a filet with a pat of butter on top. People get to eat til they're full, that's the difference, it has nothing to do with volume. Higher fat with adequate protein makes someone feel full faster than higher carb.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
billieljaime wrote: »let me clarify that if one has to do low carb due to medical condition then I totally get that….
From the information/polls/discussions on the LCHF boards and forums, the majority of those doing LCHF have a medical condition, many didnt find out until after they started and then went to ask a doctor why, when calories were the same, they lost weight on LCHF and not on a SAD. Insulin is a hormone, so often if you have PCOS, IR, metabolic syndrome, etc LCHF is often, but not always for everybody, the only way ppl with those issues can lose weight without eating less than 1200 calories a day and exercising most of those off.
Many on LCHF can listen to their bodies and stop eating when full and arent emotional eaters, so they can not count calories and lose weight. Many have to still count calories tho because they cant read their bodies signals or emotional/boredom eat.
I am not going to debate the science, new studies, information out there about whether or not LCHF is better than a SAD. I am not in a position to whip out fancy studies and talk all geekish.
But just giving you some info on why many on the LCHF boards/forums/etc can eat more than they could on a SAD and still lose weight, often more weight than they did eating a SAD.
Because youre misinformed about a low carb diet
u think it is meat drowing in a frying pan of oil
what i remember doing it was healthy lean meats supplemented with green veg and homemade salad dressings, low sodium bacons simmered in their own juices, I would then use that juice to pan sere singe servings of lean meat.
Vegetables are highly endorsed on LCHF diets along with berries, nuts and such. Many people get cught up in the "meat" aspect of LCHF they forget and neglect the other component which is FIBER found in the leafy green veggies they are supposed to be eating, there were also nuts and other legumes.
There were many other faucets and factors to the diets besides eggs steaks lard oil and grease.
Get educated.
But you'd have to get some fat from somewhere to meet the HF part, no? I know I'd have to get 2-3 times as much fat as I'm getting now if I did that.0 -
Also, why do you insist people are "confused?" Keto food is generally more calorie dense, therefore lower volume, not the other way around. You need a lot of broccoli to match the calories in a filet with a pat of butter on top. People get to eat til they're full, that's the difference, it has nothing to do with volume. Higher fat with adequate protein makes someone feel full faster than higher carb.
So you're saying that I can eat 2000 calories worth of fish, fried in fat if I wanted to and I'll lose weight?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Also, why do you insist people are "confused?" Keto food is generally more calorie dense, therefore lower volume, not the other way around. You need a lot of broccoli to match the calories in a filet with a pat of butter on top. People get to eat til they're full, that's the difference, it has nothing to do with volume. Higher fat with adequate protein makes someone feel full faster than higher carb.
So you're saying that I can eat 2000 calories worth of fish, fried in fat if I wanted to and I'll lose weight?
no, I think she is saying that your diet is composed of such a high fat% that you are satiated by eating less…
at least that is my understanding….0 -
billieljaime wrote: »billieljaime wrote: »let me clarify that if one has to do low carb due to medical condition then I totally get that….
From the information/polls/discussions on the LCHF boards and forums, the majority of those doing LCHF have a medical condition, many didnt find out until after they started and then went to ask a doctor why, when calories were the same, they lost weight on LCHF and not on a SAD. Insulin is a hormone, so often if you have PCOS, IR, metabolic syndrome, etc LCHF is often, but not always for everybody, the only way ppl with those issues can lose weight without eating less than 1200 calories a day and exercising most of those off.
Many on LCHF can listen to their bodies and stop eating when full and arent emotional eaters, so they can not count calories and lose weight. Many have to still count calories tho because they cant read their bodies signals or emotional/boredom eat.
I am not going to debate the science, new studies, information out there about whether or not LCHF is better than a SAD. I am not in a position to whip out fancy studies and talk all geekish.
But just giving you some info on why many on the LCHF boards/forums/etc can eat more than they could on a SAD and still lose weight, often more weight than they did eating a SAD.
Because youre misinformed about a low carb diet
u think it is meat drowing in a frying pan of oil
what i remember doing it was healthy lean meats supplemented with green veg and homemade salad dressings, low sodium bacons simmered in their own juices, I would then use that juice to pan sere singe servings of lean meat.
Vegetables are highly endorsed on LCHF diets along with berries, nuts and such. Many people get cught up in the "meat" aspect of LCHF they forget and neglect the other component which is FIBER found in the leafy green veggies they are supposed to be eating.
I am not sure which LCHF diet you did, but most now endorse low carb, high fat, adequate protein. So fatty meats along with the full sodium bacon. Fiber can cause issues with some on the meds for IR so dont eat any or very little fiber and have no problem with potty or other issues.
You are totally correct
Full fat meats are endorsed, I just have preference for leaner cuts
and lower sodium items
And As I stated previously I did Atkins twice and lost 100 lbs low carbing twice..... Atkins endorses fiber, through green leafy veg....up to four cups per day.......his theory was carbs - fiber = net carbs and only the net carbs counted for the day.
I remember when net carbs started to factor in Weight Watchers Points calculation (the higher the fiber the lower the points) so people started chowing down on Benefiber and other supplements in order to negate the points in their food. Another example how people take something and run with it to extremes!0 -
I have been low carb for over a year now, and absolutely believe in CICO (assuming that's some sort of acronym for being in caloric deficit.) In fact, many of us believe that. Low carb is a very effective tool for me, as a food addict, to maintain a caloric deficit. I can avoid all of my trigger foods, stay on plan, and eat much healthier than I did with simply counting calories and watching my portions. I follow an optimal ketogenic diet, and I feel satisfied, have great energy, and am losing weight, all while staying at 1350 or less calories. 0
-
stevencloser wrote: »billieljaime wrote: »let me clarify that if one has to do low carb due to medical condition then I totally get that….
From the information/polls/discussions on the LCHF boards and forums, the majority of those doing LCHF have a medical condition, many didnt find out until after they started and then went to ask a doctor why, when calories were the same, they lost weight on LCHF and not on a SAD. Insulin is a hormone, so often if you have PCOS, IR, metabolic syndrome, etc LCHF is often, but not always for everybody, the only way ppl with those issues can lose weight without eating less than 1200 calories a day and exercising most of those off.
Many on LCHF can listen to their bodies and stop eating when full and arent emotional eaters, so they can not count calories and lose weight. Many have to still count calories tho because they cant read their bodies signals or emotional/boredom eat.
I am not going to debate the science, new studies, information out there about whether or not LCHF is better than a SAD. I am not in a position to whip out fancy studies and talk all geekish.
But just giving you some info on why many on the LCHF boards/forums/etc can eat more than they could on a SAD and still lose weight, often more weight than they did eating a SAD.
Because youre misinformed about a low carb diet
u think it is meat drowing in a frying pan of oil
what i remember doing it was healthy lean meats supplemented with green veg and homemade salad dressings, low sodium bacons simmered in their own juices, I would then use that juice to pan sere singe servings of lean meat.
Vegetables are highly endorsed on LCHF diets along with berries, nuts and such. Many people get cught up in the "meat" aspect of LCHF they forget and neglect the other component which is FIBER found in the leafy green veggies they are supposed to be eating, there were also nuts and other legumes.
There were many other faucets and factors to the diets besides eggs steaks lard oil and grease.
Get educated.
But you'd have to get some fat from somewhere to meet the HF part, no? I know I'd have to get 2-3 times as much fat as I'm getting now if I did that.
hell, I have a hard enough time hitting 30% fat …for my macro0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Also, why do you insist people are "confused?" Keto food is generally more calorie dense, therefore lower volume, not the other way around. You need a lot of broccoli to match the calories in a filet with a pat of butter on top. People get to eat til they're full, that's the difference, it has nothing to do with volume. Higher fat with adequate protein makes someone feel full faster than higher carb.
So you're saying that I can eat 2000 calories worth of fish, fried in fat if I wanted to and I'll lose weight?
no, I think she is saying that your diet is composed of such a high fat% that you are satiated by eating less…
at least that is my understanding….
For many on LCHF, that is correct. For those with medical issues, the issue is much murkier. But for those who are 'normal' and can listen to their bodies signals, yes it works that way.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Also, why do you insist people are "confused?" Keto food is generally more calorie dense, therefore lower volume, not the other way around. You need a lot of broccoli to match the calories in a filet with a pat of butter on top. People get to eat til they're full, that's the difference, it has nothing to do with volume. Higher fat with adequate protein makes someone feel full faster than higher carb.
So you're saying that I can eat 2000 calories worth of fish, fried in fat if I wanted to and I'll lose weight?
no, I think she is saying that your diet is composed of such a high fat% that you are satiated by eating less…
at least that is my understanding….
It says it has nothing to do with volume.0 -
It's still that same terminology issue you had in the other thread. You equate deficit to proactively restricting calories. Other people equate deficit to less calories, whether you put effort into it or not.
In other words, with your definition, someone who is done eating for the day, and their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and has to walk 3 miles before they get a cell signal has restricted their calories for the day. Others would say they were at a deficit, but it wasn't something they set out to do. Similarly, someone who has the flu and can't keep any food down for 3 days is in a deficit, you insist they are "restricting," where others would say they're at a deficit without trying. I'f I'm broke, don't get paid til Friday, and have nothing to live on but 2 packs of ramen and a bottle of ketchup, that's not actively restricting, but it's definitely a deficit.
The other hot button phrase people keep twisting is "eat all you want," which does not and has never meant "eat everything in the kitchen" or "eat like it's Thanksgiving." It means eat until satiety.
A subset of people on LC, especially on keto, naturally eat at a deficit by eating to satiety, and do not need to count calories or log their food. Some have been on it long enough, they don't even have to count carbs, similar to anyone else on maintenance 5+ years out who can accurately eyeball portion sizes. At the other extreme are people like me. As long as I'm in keto, I'm in a constant state of satiety. If I go a day or more without eating, I'll get shaky and dizzy, but I don't get the other signals that normally come with hunger like a growling stomach or feeling of emptiness. If I ate "to satiety" I simply wouldn't eat at all, so instead I eat a prescribed number of calories spread across the day, divided up into portions that don't make me feel uncomfortably full when I'm done. There is no universal truth that people on LC don't count calories, or that everyone on LC must count calories, any more than there's a universal rule that everyone who practices moderation must eat gelato every week. If you took a poll, I suspect you'd find, at least here, that most LC do count, because they are either working on weight loss or lifting or both. You'll find some who go without counting for a variety of reasons, they're on maintenance, or they're dealing with the aftermath of an ED, and not counting eases the pressure on them.
Aside from that you can get into the whole host of issues that change the CO portion of the CICO equation, but which seem to be inconvenient to your (generic you) arguments when you insist someone who didn't lose on carbs and did lose without carbs must have been eating too much. That's disingenuous, especially considering a large majority of people on LC have contributing medical issues (whether they feel like sharing them publicly or not). There are also plenty of people who have isolated a medical condition by trying it without intentionally trying to find one, and the results they get are the clues they and their doctor need to figure out that something was wrong all along. It's possible they weren't measuring, but it's also possible they're IR. Since nobody here is qualified to diagnose them, they really aren't qualified to insist they must be lying and it can't possibly be anything else, either.
A few other things to point out, since you started the conversation, even though I know OP is already familiar with them - LC does not mean no fruit or vegetables, unless you choose to. Most people choose to eat them. It doesn't mean no desserts or no treats or that you constantly feel deprived and tortured. The difference is your treats usually come in the form of prime rib and lobster instead of a Big Mac or a Hershey bar. When you eat chocolate, you eat good chocolate and appreciate it, every day if you want. Food will taste different, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than when you try something you loved when you were 6 and can't believe how disgusting it is now.
Perhaps the LC threads wouldn't be so quick to be hijacked if people quit treating it like a cult, and just acknowledged that it will get its share of misinformed newbies like every other WOE represented on this board. It's not a reason to shout them down like they killed your kitten when they use a word you disagree with.
i am just going to reply to the bolded part for now.
If you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting something. In your case, you choose to restrict carbs, which puts you into ketosis, which puts you in a calorie deficit. In my case, I do not restrict any foods groups; however, when cutting I do restrict calories so that I am in a deficit.
so are you saying that less calories does not equal restriction? I guess people don't like the word restriction because it has a negative connotation but if you are in a deficit that is what you are doing ….
I don't think it's negative, only that it implies an action. I restrict carbs, but that does not equate to a calorie deficit. That's why I'm here in the first place. I threw a blood clot, got a nice vacation in the hospital, and spent the next 2 years basically not giving a damn because I was stoned out of my mind on painkillers and stressed out from not working. I was still in keto, that's the easy part. I was sedentary+ and no longer at a deficit (see the part above about how I don't get hunger signals on keto). In that time, I gained a lot of weight, some is lymphatic fluid, but at least half is plain fat.
If you want to expand on the other discussion going in that thread, you can also restrict carbs while intentionally gaining (the ketogains community), or restrict carb and stay at maintenance. Actively restricting carbs is not an action that guarantees a deficit, but a deficit is a natural possible side effect of restricting carbs and increasing satiety.0 -
katythelady wrote: »I have been low carb for over a year now, and absolutely believe in CICO (assuming that's some sort of acronym for being in caloric deficit.) In fact, many of us believe that. Low carb is a very effective tool for me, as a food addict, to maintain a caloric deficit. I can avoid all of my trigger foods, stay on plan, and eat much healthier than I did with simply counting calories and watching my portions. I follow an optimal ketogenic diet, and I feel satisfied, have great energy, and am losing weight, all while staying at 1350 or less calories.
CICO = calories in vs calories out0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Also, why do you insist people are "confused?" Keto food is generally more calorie dense, therefore lower volume, not the other way around. You need a lot of broccoli to match the calories in a filet with a pat of butter on top. People get to eat til they're full, that's the difference, it has nothing to do with volume. Higher fat with adequate protein makes someone feel full faster than higher carb.
So you're saying that I can eat 2000 calories worth of fish, fried in fat if I wanted to and I'll lose weight?
No, I'm saying you'd get full at 1400 and put the other 600 in the fridge (or possibly feed it to ducks, if it's from McDonald's)1 -
It's still that same terminology issue you had in the other thread. You equate deficit to proactively restricting calories. Other people equate deficit to less calories, whether you put effort into it or not.
In other words, with your definition, someone who is done eating for the day, and their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and has to walk 3 miles before they get a cell signal has restricted their calories for the day. Others would say they were at a deficit, but it wasn't something they set out to do. Similarly, someone who has the flu and can't keep any food down for 3 days is in a deficit, you insist they are "restricting," where others would say they're at a deficit without trying. I'f I'm broke, don't get paid til Friday, and have nothing to live on but 2 packs of ramen and a bottle of ketchup, that's not actively restricting, but it's definitely a deficit.
The other hot button phrase people keep twisting is "eat all you want," which does not and has never meant "eat everything in the kitchen" or "eat like it's Thanksgiving." It means eat until satiety.
A subset of people on LC, especially on keto, naturally eat at a deficit by eating to satiety, and do not need to count calories or log their food. Some have been on it long enough, they don't even have to count carbs, similar to anyone else on maintenance 5+ years out who can accurately eyeball portion sizes. At the other extreme are people like me. As long as I'm in keto, I'm in a constant state of satiety. If I go a day or more without eating, I'll get shaky and dizzy, but I don't get the other signals that normally come with hunger like a growling stomach or feeling of emptiness. If I ate "to satiety" I simply wouldn't eat at all, so instead I eat a prescribed number of calories spread across the day, divided up into portions that don't make me feel uncomfortably full when I'm done. There is no universal truth that people on LC don't count calories, or that everyone on LC must count calories, any more than there's a universal rule that everyone who practices moderation must eat gelato every week. If you took a poll, I suspect you'd find, at least here, that most LC do count, because they are either working on weight loss or lifting or both. You'll find some who go without counting for a variety of reasons, they're on maintenance, or they're dealing with the aftermath of an ED, and not counting eases the pressure on them.
Aside from that you can get into the whole host of issues that change the CO portion of the CICO equation, but which seem to be inconvenient to your (generic you) arguments when you insist someone who didn't lose on carbs and did lose without carbs must have been eating too much. That's disingenuous, especially considering a large majority of people on LC have contributing medical issues (whether they feel like sharing them publicly or not). There are also plenty of people who have isolated a medical condition by trying it without intentionally trying to find one, and the results they get are the clues they and their doctor need to figure out that something was wrong all along. It's possible they weren't measuring, but it's also possible they're IR. Since nobody here is qualified to diagnose them, they really aren't qualified to insist they must be lying and it can't possibly be anything else, either.
A few other things to point out, since you started the conversation, even though I know OP is already familiar with them - LC does not mean no fruit or vegetables, unless you choose to. Most people choose to eat them. It doesn't mean no desserts or no treats or that you constantly feel deprived and tortured. The difference is your treats usually come in the form of prime rib and lobster instead of a Big Mac or a Hershey bar. When you eat chocolate, you eat good chocolate and appreciate it, every day if you want. Food will taste different, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than when you try something you loved when you were 6 and can't believe how disgusting it is now.
Perhaps the LC threads wouldn't be so quick to be hijacked if people quit treating it like a cult, and just acknowledged that it will get its share of misinformed newbies like every other WOE represented on this board. It's not a reason to shout them down like they killed your kitten when they use a word you disagree with.
i am just going to reply to the bolded part for now.
If you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting something. In your case, you choose to restrict carbs, which puts you into ketosis, which puts you in a calorie deficit. In my case, I do not restrict any foods groups; however, when cutting I do restrict calories so that I am in a deficit.
so are you saying that less calories does not equal restriction? I guess people don't like the word restriction because it has a negative connotation but if you are in a deficit that is what you are doing ….
I don't think it's negative, only that it implies an action. I restrict carbs, but that does not equate to a calorie deficit. That's why I'm here in the first place. I threw a blood clot, got a nice vacation in the hospital, and spent the next 2 years basically not giving a damn because I was stoned out of my mind on painkillers and stressed out from not working. I was still in keto, that's the easy part. I was sedentary+ and no longer at a deficit (see the part above about how I don't get hunger signals on keto). In that time, I gained a lot of weight, some is lymphatic fluid, but at least half is plain fat.
If you want to expand on the other discussion going in that thread, you can also restrict carbs while intentionally gaining (the ketogains community), or restrict carb and stay at maintenance. Actively restricting carbs is not an action that guarantees a deficit, but a deficit is a natural possible side effect of restricting carbs and increasing satiety.
I agree that you could be at maintenance or a surplus via doing low carb; however, I am not sure that one would want to bulk on low carb ….
if you are restricting carbs and losing weight, you have to be in a deficit though, right?0 -
Bump for reading later.0
-
So, I DO believe in CICO, because it's a fact. However, lowER carb generally makes it easier to stick to calorie requirements (for most people who do it; not all. Worked for me when I did).
For me, by the way, lower carb meant like one piece of whole grain toast in the morning with my eggs, and then sweet potatoes or brown rice or pasta, if I was going to have them, for lunch and evening meals. I don't even like most fruit, so the only thing I cut out as far as veggie/fruit stuff goes is corn. Basically, it was a lot of veg, meat (I love meat - barbecued, grilled, sauteed, any which way, ate tons of that), fats, and those substitutions I mentioned. I cut out white bread, pasta, potatoes, & potato chips and hickory sticks, and any fast food that involved things like that. I don't really like cake and stuff like that either, so that wasn't a loss. I'd have a brownie or a piece of dark chocolate now and then. I did not keep any stuff that might tempt me in the house, and I mostly stuck to the rules (low GI), which were pretty simple to follow.
When I did it, the weight came off easily. I wasn't hungry, portion control was dead easy, not even work. I ate until I was full, and that was just enough to lose (50 lbs, by the way). I didn't get into fast food spirals in the way I did when I was relying on convenience food. Whereas when I ate a lot of convenience & fast food, my stomach would be technically full, but I'd still be hungry. I'd crave more and more of that stuff the more I ate it. And, I felt crappy. I'd often find myself lacking energy.
On the lower carb diet (which really meant just a lot more veg), I felt great. My energy levels were steadier. And it's not even like I had a problem before - I've never been metabolically abnormal - blood sugar tests have always been normal, everything fine.
Currently I'm eating moderate stuff, including occasional fast food and white carbs, but I've come to prefer e.g. whole grain bread, since I did that lower carb diet. And it got me into the habit of eating more veg.
So no, it's not the only way to lose, and it doesn't trump CICO (although I think it does help regulate hormones). But it makes sticking to CICO so much easier. For people who get cranky on or off certain foods, or who have cravings for particular foods, or have issues with self-control, I think it's great, even on a temporary basis. Because some of those good, health-serving habits (like eating more veg) stick.1 -
Lack of carbs makes me "mean" so my family won't play with me. No walks or bike rides. No game of Frisbee. So if I don't have some carbs my CO takes a hit. Nobody wants to be around a miserable person. But some people don't get crabby. But I do. Opps, sorry double posted. Those darn alcohol carbs!Carbs hinder weight loss because it reverses CICO even if you are eating at a deficit, and because you're mean.
0 -
It's still that same terminology issue you had in the other thread. You equate deficit to proactively restricting calories. Other people equate deficit to less calories, whether you put effort into it or not.
In other words, with your definition, someone who is done eating for the day, and their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and has to walk 3 miles before they get a cell signal has restricted their calories for the day. Others would say they were at a deficit, but it wasn't something they set out to do. Similarly, someone who has the flu and can't keep any food down for 3 days is in a deficit, you insist they are "restricting," where others would say they're at a deficit without trying. I'f I'm broke, don't get paid til Friday, and have nothing to live on but 2 packs of ramen and a bottle of ketchup, that's not actively restricting, but it's definitely a deficit.
The other hot button phrase people keep twisting is "eat all you want," which does not and has never meant "eat everything in the kitchen" or "eat like it's Thanksgiving." It means eat until satiety.
A subset of people on LC, especially on keto, naturally eat at a deficit by eating to satiety, and do not need to count calories or log their food. Some have been on it long enough, they don't even have to count carbs, similar to anyone else on maintenance 5+ years out who can accurately eyeball portion sizes. At the other extreme are people like me. As long as I'm in keto, I'm in a constant state of satiety. If I go a day or more without eating, I'll get shaky and dizzy, but I don't get the other signals that normally come with hunger like a growling stomach or feeling of emptiness. If I ate "to satiety" I simply wouldn't eat at all, so instead I eat a prescribed number of calories spread across the day, divided up into portions that don't make me feel uncomfortably full when I'm done. There is no universal truth that people on LC don't count calories, or that everyone on LC must count calories, any more than there's a universal rule that everyone who practices moderation must eat gelato every week. If you took a poll, I suspect you'd find, at least here, that most LC do count, because they are either working on weight loss or lifting or both. You'll find some who go without counting for a variety of reasons, they're on maintenance, or they're dealing with the aftermath of an ED, and not counting eases the pressure on them.
Aside from that you can get into the whole host of issues that change the CO portion of the CICO equation, but which seem to be inconvenient to your (generic you) arguments when you insist someone who didn't lose on carbs and did lose without carbs must have been eating too much. That's disingenuous, especially considering a large majority of people on LC have contributing medical issues (whether they feel like sharing them publicly or not). There are also plenty of people who have isolated a medical condition by trying it without intentionally trying to find one, and the results they get are the clues they and their doctor need to figure out that something was wrong all along. It's possible they weren't measuring, but it's also possible they're IR. Since nobody here is qualified to diagnose them, they really aren't qualified to insist they must be lying and it can't possibly be anything else, either.
A few other things to point out, since you started the conversation, even though I know OP is already familiar with them - LC does not mean no fruit or vegetables, unless you choose to. Most people choose to eat them. It doesn't mean no desserts or no treats or that you constantly feel deprived and tortured. The difference is your treats usually come in the form of prime rib and lobster instead of a Big Mac or a Hershey bar. When you eat chocolate, you eat good chocolate and appreciate it, every day if you want. Food will taste different, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than when you try something you loved when you were 6 and can't believe how disgusting it is now.
Perhaps the LC threads wouldn't be so quick to be hijacked if people quit treating it like a cult, and just acknowledged that it will get its share of misinformed newbies like every other WOE represented on this board. It's not a reason to shout them down like they killed your kitten when they use a word you disagree with.
i am just going to reply to the bolded part for now.
If you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting something. In your case, you choose to restrict carbs, which puts you into ketosis, which puts you in a calorie deficit. In my case, I do not restrict any foods groups; however, when cutting I do restrict calories so that I am in a deficit.
so are you saying that less calories does not equal restriction? I guess people don't like the word restriction because it has a negative connotation but if you are in a deficit that is what you are doing ….
I don't think it's negative, only that it implies an action. I restrict carbs, but that does not equate to a calorie deficit. That's why I'm here in the first place. I threw a blood clot, got a nice vacation in the hospital, and spent the next 2 years basically not giving a damn because I was stoned out of my mind on painkillers and stressed out from not working. I was still in keto, that's the easy part. I was sedentary+ and no longer at a deficit (see the part above about how I don't get hunger signals on keto). In that time, I gained a lot of weight, some is lymphatic fluid, but at least half is plain fat.
If you want to expand on the other discussion going in that thread, you can also restrict carbs while intentionally gaining (the ketogains community), or restrict carb and stay at maintenance. Actively restricting carbs is not an action that guarantees a deficit, but a deficit is a natural possible side effect of restricting carbs and increasing satiety.
I agree that you could be at maintenance or a surplus via doing low carb; however, I am not sure that one would want to bulk on low carb ….
if you are restricting carbs and losing weight, you have to be in a deficit though, right?
If you are losing weight, but that doesn't mean you're actually tracking and intentionally keeping a deficit. It's why not tracking is a slippery slope for those who are trying to lose, they'll lose a month, gain a week (the same normal thing that happens on any WOE), but since they have no log to examine, they don't know if it's water or too much salt or just a fluke.
To be clear here, I'm entirely in the you must track to lose, at least when you're still learning, but I understand why people get frustrated when they don't, and people mistake what they're saying to mean they eat at a surplus and lose.
0 -
So no, it's not the only way to lose, and it doesn't trump CICO (although I think it does help regulate hormones).
This is the issue for many on LCHF. There are stories upon stories of ppl who ate a SAD, say 1500 calories a day and exercised and didnt lose weight or gained. Then they ate 1500 calories a day and exercised but ate LCHF and they lost weight in the short and long terms. Insulin is a hormone, if you have high insulin like IR or hormonal weirdness like PCOS, hormones play a HUGE roll in how you process what you eat and the types of food you eat.
So 1500 is a deficit yes, but what you eat, for many, is more important that how much you eat when it comes to weightloss.0 -
I low-carb (20g gross/day max most days), but I suffer no delusions that CICO does not apply. I lost 80lbs pre-low-carb and another 60 since.
For me, it is a satiety issue. Getting most of my calories from fat and protein keeps me much happier than when I was getting a significant portion (30% roughly) from carbs.
No magic, just preference. I like to think of my way of eating as CICO's awesome sidekick, keeping it on track.0 -
Without having read the whole thread I'm going to guess that a lot of people do not distinguish between fat loss and a decrease in scale weight. You can lose weight via a decrease in water retained, food in your gut, glycogen, etc.
So while certain things (low carb, eating tons of veggies or fiber, decreasing sodium) can result in a decrease of scale weight, this is not the same thing as fat loss, which is what CICO addresses.0
So my CO takes a hit.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions