no carbs or low carbs
Options
Replies
-
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Not when you're using a pre-programmed calculator. It's trial and error, and no amount of playing semantics games is going to change that. You will not find a single website, including this one, that lets you enter your basic stats and gives you a TDEE that accounts for insulin resistance, for example, because even two given people with IR aren't affected by it to the same exact degree.
The energy balance equation is a system of variables. When someone says "CICO doesn't work for me" they are saying the pre-programmed standard variables in that system are not accurate for them. You can pretend that's not what they mean, but it's not doing anyone any favors.
So the bottom line is people that say that are ignorant and/or stupid and can't grasp simple concepts and don't understand a mathematical formula is just an estimate. And depending on which ones they use, they all have varying levels of accuracy. There is also nothing taking into account the variations of calories in a given food stuff.0 -
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Not when you're using a pre-programmed calculator. It's trial and error, and no amount of playing semantics games is going to change that. You will not find a single website, including this one, that lets you enter your basic stats and gives you a TDEE that accounts for insulin resistance, for example, because even two given people with IR aren't affected by it to the same exact degree.
The energy balance equation is a system of variables. When someone says "CICO doesn't work for me" they are saying the pre-programmed standard variables in that system are not accurate for them. You can pretend that's not what they mean, but it's not doing anyone any favors.
It's still CICO. Regardless of how you try to package it to make it sound better. Even for people that don't have some kind of disorder it's still trail and error. Sorry but no one is pretending anything and plenty of people have come around here claiming they eat more calories on low carb and lose weight but when then follow CICO and eat at a deficit they don't lose weight. They should get their facts straight.
Yes they are, just like they pretend anyone who mentions sugar is saying "sugar is evil", or that anyone who stops eating something is suffering and depriving themselves.0 -
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Not when you're using a pre-programmed calculator. It's trial and error, and no amount of playing semantics games is going to change that. You will not find a single website, including this one, that lets you enter your basic stats and gives you a TDEE that accounts for insulin resistance, for example, because even two given people with IR aren't affected by it to the same exact degree.
The energy balance equation is a system of variables. When someone says "CICO doesn't work for me" they are saying the pre-programmed standard variables in that system are not accurate for them. You can pretend that's not what they mean, but it's not doing anyone any favors.
They're saying a computer program doesn't work for them. You're really reaching here.
CICO isn't a computer program.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Not when you're using a pre-programmed calculator. It's trial and error, and no amount of playing semantics games is going to change that. You will not find a single website, including this one, that lets you enter your basic stats and gives you a TDEE that accounts for insulin resistance, for example, because even two given people with IR aren't affected by it to the same exact degree.
The energy balance equation is a system of variables. When someone says "CICO doesn't work for me" they are saying the pre-programmed standard variables in that system are not accurate for them. You can pretend that's not what they mean, but it's not doing anyone any favors.
They're saying a computer program doesn't work for them. You're really reaching here.
CICO isn't a computer program.
I'm glad we agree. Nobody is required to take a vocabulary exam to create an account here, but it's not like context is rocket science.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Not when you're using a pre-programmed calculator. It's trial and error, and no amount of playing semantics games is going to change that. You will not find a single website, including this one, that lets you enter your basic stats and gives you a TDEE that accounts for insulin resistance, for example, because even two given people with IR aren't affected by it to the same exact degree.
The energy balance equation is a system of variables. When someone says "CICO doesn't work for me" they are saying the pre-programmed standard variables in that system are not accurate for them. You can pretend that's not what they mean, but it's not doing anyone any favors.
They're saying a computer program doesn't work for them. You're really reaching here.
CICO isn't a computer program.
I'm glad we agree. Nobody is required to take a vocabulary exam to create an account here, but it's not like context is rocket science.
Well, since CICO is not the computer program, saying that CICO doesn't work is putting it wrong, now, isn't it? It would be more correct to say that they cannot use the online calculators unless they apply an additional 20% to the numbers to allow for their medical condition, wouldn't it?
Or, oh, I don't know, I allow for some wiggle room because I have hypothyroidism and don't get all huffy about it. I don't know why people who low carb get so het up over having to adjust things like it's some major problem.
0 -
lol.
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Not when you're using a pre-programmed calculator. It's trial and error, and no amount of playing semantics games is going to change that. You will not find a single website, including this one, that lets you enter your basic stats and gives you a TDEE that accounts for insulin resistance, for example, because even two given people with IR aren't affected by it to the same exact degree.
The energy balance equation is a system of variables. When someone says "CICO doesn't work for me" they are saying the pre-programmed standard variables in that system are not accurate for them. You can pretend that's not what they mean, but it's not doing anyone any favors.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Not when you're using a pre-programmed calculator. It's trial and error, and no amount of playing semantics games is going to change that. You will not find a single website, including this one, that lets you enter your basic stats and gives you a TDEE that accounts for insulin resistance, for example, because even two given people with IR aren't affected by it to the same exact degree.
The energy balance equation is a system of variables. When someone says "CICO doesn't work for me" they are saying the pre-programmed standard variables in that system are not accurate for them. You can pretend that's not what they mean, but it's not doing anyone any favors.
They're saying a computer program doesn't work for them. You're really reaching here.
CICO isn't a computer program.
I'm glad we agree. Nobody is required to take a vocabulary exam to create an account here, but it's not like context is rocket science.
Well, since CICO is not the computer program, saying that CICO doesn't work is putting it wrong, now, isn't it? It would be more correct to say that they cannot use the online calculators unless they apply an additional 20% to the numbers to allow for their medical condition, wouldn't it?
Or, oh, I don't know, I allow for some wiggle room because I have hypothyroidism and don't get all huffy about it. I don't know why people who low carb get so het up over having to adjust things like it's some major problem.
The only time I see anyone "het up" is when they ask a question and get a dozen people telling them OMGZ YOU'RE WRONG ON THE INTERNETZ!0 -
I have seen so many people with PCOS charge into threads for no reason whatsoever when it wasn't germane to the topic and start going on about it and starting on about how CICO doesn't work. For no reason. Because butthurt.
To be fair, I also have two lovely friends who have PCOS who are fabulous. Neither of them low carbs (one moderate carbs), and they both deal with their issue with grace and no butthurt. They know they have it and do CICO and just deal.
There are plenty of people on the forums quietly dealing with a vast variety of medical concerns and getting on with it and doing fabulously without all that. It's always the special diet adherents that have to make an issue of things.0 -
Ashleighhunter92 wrote: »I struggle with foods, I really only like chicken, tuna and eggs
Oh, hey look, it's the response from the OP! She's having trouble due to a limited range of foods in her diet. Maybe we could focus on helping her out instead of what we're doing now, so I don't have to send out Angry Triangle Face to everyone?0 -
Ashleighhunter92 wrote: »I struggle with foods, I really only like chicken, tuna and eggs
Oh, hey look, it's the response from the OP! She's having trouble due to a limited range of foods in her diet. Maybe we could focus on helping her out instead of what we're doing now, so I don't have to send out Angry Triangle Face to everyone?
Awesome gif. And now I'm curious what the angry triangle face is...0 -
OP, when I low carbed, I didn't eat a lot of beef either because I don't like it much. It's true that fat will keep you fuller though. Do you like turkey? I used to eat a lot of ground turkey. I'd add olive oil to my mix for burgers or meatloaf (just ground meat and parmesan cheese and eggs and seasoning for low carb meatloaf). Egg salad made with avocados instead of mayo is really delicious. In fact, I used to eat a lot of egg salad, tuna salad, and chicken salad to get more fat since my protein was so lean.0
-
Also realized, I made this list for another thread, and most of it will be applicable here (skip the hot dog buns for the sausage):
Go to dinners (and lunches):- Taco salad with grilled chicken, cheese, bell peppers, onions, mushrooms I prefer my veggies cooked), guacamole, and salsa instead of dressing.
- Chicken sausage (I just have it in a hot dog bun) plus veggies
- Venison stew
- Italian stew (essentially a pasta sauce with a ton of veggies, goat cheese, and ground beef or venison supplemented with some spicy Italian sausage and no pasta)
- buffalo chicken dip (I eat it with fresh veggies or not as a dip and mix veggies in)
- pulled pork/chicken
- grilled chicken with different seasonings
0 -
Oh look, another low carb question post goes off topic. Go figure.Ashleighhunter92 wrote: »I struggle with foods, I really only like chicken, tuna and eggs
Are you saying those are the only foods you like which fit into eating low carb?
Beef? Pork? Bacon? Cheese? Veggies? Butter? Bacon? Sour cream?
What were you eating before eating low carb? If you don't like a lot of meat, dairy, or fat sources, low carb might not fit great for what you like to eat.
0 -
My nutritionist told me that a person needs 130 grams of carbs a day for healthy brain function. If you don't get that many a day you will be lacking. Eat good carbs and not junk carbs. Less processed carbs.
0 -
My nutritionist told me that a person needs 130 grams of carbs a day for healthy brain function. If you don't get that many a day you will be lacking. Eat good carbs and not junk carbs. Less processed carbs.
Your brain needs glycogen to function; it is essential to life. Luckily, your body can synthesize glycogen from other food sources (or from your fat stores if you're in a deficit). Low carb and/or keto is not necessary and it's not right for all people, but it does work for some. And their brain function does not suffer because of it.0 -
She is a state licensed, masters degree educated and works for the local medical center/hospital. What is your education and license on your expertise?!?!?! Please share your qualifications on this.............
0 -
She's still wrong (see my post above). And since you seem to care so much, I have a PhD in genetics and have taken several biochemistry classes.She is a state licensed, masters degree educated and works for the local medical center/hospital. What is your education and license on your expertise?!?!?! Please share your qualifications on this.............
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
For me I think it is a combination. I think focusing on eating lower carb has helped me stay in my calorie range easier than simply counting calories. I know it seems weird but it works for me. Secondly, I think I retain a lot of water and tend to eat all the wrong type of foods. Eating less carbs (by that I mean refined carbs, sugar, etc) it releases more water from your system.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions