why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
billieljaime wrote: »OK I lost the BULK of my weight following LOW CARB at the time I was NOT counting calories just carbs and subtracting fibers for net carbs....then I found MFP and starting logging my foods.....was STILL doing low carb and counting carbs......
It took me a LONG TIME to break the low carb cycle and come around to CICO
what I found was even though I was "low carb" I was still in a calorie cycle
So no matter what you call it, low carb, CICO, atkins, south beach, vegan, whatever you diet/lifestyle choice is...... the bottom line is it all owrks on the premises of thermodymics.....energy in/out
People dont like to hear that.
Also CICO people can be JUST AS STUBBORN as low carb people at concededing that there are ways OTHER than calorie counting to lose weight.
I lost a hundred lbs TWICE counting CARBS and not calories.
I count calories now.... but I did not always, BOTH METHODS work
LOW CARBERS and CICOs play nice together, both methods work, stop fighting.
agree - every method is just a tool to create a calorie deficit, or maintain, or bulk ….0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Heres an example. Way back when, I was a member of an egg fast-stall breaker diet page. For 1-2 weeks these people ate nothing but eggs and fat (butter, mayo, coconut oil). The rule was 1 TBS fat per egg. The general amount of eggs consumed were 10-12 per day with the added fat alongside.
The calories were huge and yet the majority lost weigh like crazy!
at 70 calories an egg that would be 840 calories for 12 eggs …so if you just 12 eggs and some fats not sure you would hit 1500 ????
But 12 TBS of fat would be at least another 1200 cal or more, if we go by that story. Personally I think people were probably skipping fats however.
12 tbs of fat a day is insane!!! If I have a 2 tbs of olive oil a day that is ALOT for me...
How would you even do that unless you were having it in shots? I love eggs but the thought of them swimming in all that oil... gag.
*dry heaves*0 -
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.0 -
-
billieljaime wrote: »so when I did low carb Atkins was all the rage and there were guidlines it did not mean i could eat a tub of lard because there was no lard....
seriously would you drink five liters of diet coke because there are no calories or six pots of coffee because there are no calories?
The simple answer is no because you would feel like crap and not meet your health goals
didn't some people take atkins to the extreme and start eating steak and bacon all day????0 -
Interested in this too. And yes, hopefully we can have a mature discussion (with some fun along the way).0
-
ceoverturf wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I'm genuinely interested in the replies to this, as I have the same questions.
The replies are usually riddles that dance around the subject, but never actually state a simple yes or no answer.
I hope the smart *kitten* don't come in and derail this thread
Too late
I gotta save some calories for popcorn! I did Atkins New Revolution years ago, wow what a ride that was. May post about it after I have read more responses. I do enjoy a good, fun and informative thread! Please be smart with all the *kitten* you got
***I'm gonna get in trouble**
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Heres an example. Way back when, I was a member of an egg fast-stall breaker diet page. For 1-2 weeks these people ate nothing but eggs and fat (butter, mayo, coconut oil). The rule was 1 TBS fat per egg. The general amount of eggs consumed were 10-12 per day with the added fat alongside.
The calories were huge and yet the majority lost weigh like crazy!
at 70 calories an egg that would be 840 calories for 12 eggs …so if you just 12 eggs and some fats not sure you would hit 1500 ????
we must be doing our sums differently.
12 eggs= 840 calories
20g butter ×12= 1728 calories
Total== 2568 calories
And the fat could be either butter, coconut oil or mayonnaise
0 -
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.
ETA: many on a LCHF regularly eat over 100g of fat a day. Ever drink 1/2 a cup of whole cream?0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Heres an example. Way back when, I was a member of an egg fast-stall breaker diet page. For 1-2 weeks these people ate nothing but eggs and fat (butter, mayo, coconut oil). The rule was 1 TBS fat per egg. The general amount of eggs consumed were 10-12 per day with the added fat alongside.
The calories were huge and yet the majority lost weigh like crazy!
at 70 calories an egg that would be 840 calories for 12 eggs …so if you just 12 eggs and some fats not sure you would hit 1500 ????
we must be doing our sums differently.
12 eggs= 840 calories
20g butter ×12= 1728 calories
Total== 2568 calories
I was just assuming 700 calories from butter…but I did not do the math on it….0 -
Maybe low carb creates a way of eating for some people where they don't need to count calories because they feel fuller and eat less or because it eliminates a large proportion of the foods that people commonly tend to over-eat on (starchy carbs, refined carbs or carbs + fat combos). It doesn't however mean that CICO principles don't magically apply for some reason.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.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Heres an example. Way back when, I was a member of an egg fast-stall breaker diet page. For 1-2 weeks these people ate nothing but eggs and fat (butter, mayo, coconut oil). The rule was 1 TBS fat per egg. The general amount of eggs consumed were 10-12 per day with the added fat alongside.
The calories were huge and yet the majority lost weigh like crazy!
at 70 calories an egg that would be 840 calories for 12 eggs …so if you just 12 eggs and some fats not sure you would hit 1500 ????
But 12 TBS of fat would be at least another 1200 cal or more, if we go by that story. Personally I think people were probably skipping fats however.
12 tbs of fat a day is insane!!! If I have a 2 tbs of olive oil a day that is ALOT for me...
How would you even do that unless you were having it in shots? I love eggs but the thought of them swimming in all that oil... gag.
*dry heaves*
I suspect the eggs had to be cooked in 1 TBS of fat..doesn't mean they consumed it all...If i did this it would be 10 eggs @ 80 calories each, 10 tbsp fat (bacon fat/butter/olive oil) 100 calories each
1800 calories...I would lose weight.
http://www.ibreatheimhungry.com/2014/07/egg-fast-diet-menu-plan-low-carb-keto.html
Here is the diet actually and here is a quote from itWhy didn’t you post the nutrition info and calories on this plan?
Each person will eat a different amount, making it hard to calculate for this plan. Also, egg fasting is hard enough without trying to calculate everything that goes into your mouth. Focus on eating until you’re full and no more. That may even mean eating more than this plan calls for – especially in the first couple of days. You’ll find that you’ll eat a lot less as the week continues – you won’t need to worry about the calories. Also I lost the most on the days that I ate the most calories – when you start to restrict calories in order to maximize the results, I think it can actually have the opposite effect. All the nutrition info is available for the recipes in those posts, if you really must know you can easily figure it out on your own based on the quantities you are actually eating.0 -
@ceoverturf I asked what happened when they stopped. The answer was ease their way back in slowly to their low carb plan. These were all low carb/keto people .
The page I mentioned above is on Facebook. You can take a look and read the "rules" to the diet.0 -
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 ….0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions