April challenge support
Replies
-
octobubbles wrote: »I think I am having trouble eating to hunger cues rather than just by the clock. On weekends my problem is that I tend to not drink enough water (not being at a desk all day with a full water bottle at hand), and on week days, I eat at the socially-accepted times (before work, during lunch break, when I get home).
So today I (again) renewed my intent to only eat when hungry. I started with coffee (which you will never get me to skip in the morning) plus heavy cream and extra coconut oil, and two soft-boiled eggs. Normally a coffee alone could hold me until around 3, but it's 10am and now I'm hungry again. Of course not hungry like I'd have been with a carb-laden breakfast. I can easily wait the two hours for lunch (though I'm thinking of making some broth to make up for the unsalted breakfast).
When I get to work I make myself a 16 oz tea and fill my 25 oz water bottle, to make sure I start drinking early. I also take some vitamins with about 8oz of water in the morning after I eat.
I'm hoping that works for you. I"m with you on the coffee. Must. Have. Coffee. Not negotiable. With my cream and CO. Sometimes I can just have that but more often than not, I'm starving. So I eat eggs or sausage or bacon. Or all 3.
My problem is that I was born ravenously hungry. And I'm hungry a lot. I don't eat when I'm not hungry any more, like when bored or just at meal-times because it's meal-time, though. (Which is different than the carbaholic days when I ate when not hungry.) Like if it's lunchtime, and I'm not hungry yet, I don't eat until 1 or 2 when I do get hungry. But often I am hungry in the morning, at lunch, in the late afternoon, at supper, and then feel hungry for a bedtime snack. If I eat all those times I feel hungry, I often get the over 2000 cal days. I probably have a leptin problem. I'm not sure how to fix that. There's a short circuit in my brain somewhere. Unless I resume my rule, "NO snacking. Don't care if you hungry! Don't snack!" And it gets annoying being hungry then, but I lose weight. Especially going to bed hungry. If I eat every time I genuinely feel hungry, I don't lose, because I end up just plain eating too many calories.
But we all have our challenges, and this is ever going to be mine it seems.
0 -
I'm fine going long stretches between meals, but I have to plate only what is a reasonable amount because I *will* eat everything on my plate. My parents, when I was young, used to admonish me that I could always go back for more, but back then it was because I could never finish and would waste a lot of food. Somehow I've overcome that. I tend to eat without pausing, and it's easy to eat everything before I start to register any signals from my body. I'm pretty sure it's the problem with my habits. The signals are there, I'm just ignoring them.0
-
Remember, too, everyone, that many of us have systematic repair to do to our overall systems. That requires calories above and beyond TDEE. Once the repairs get us functional again, we will start to lose again. Sometimes a gain is required to set you up for further losses.0
-
GrannyMayOz wrote: »Trust your gut GrannyMay. If you're tired and think it's because you haven't eaten, even if you're not super hungry, then go and up the amount you're eating. Sometimes hunger only comes after you start eating. It's one of the perils of low carb diets. LOL
I mowed my lawn and did a ton of yard work today. It was about four hours worth of outside work during the hottest part of the day. It was pretty exhausting.
Thank you Goat. I ate until I was stuffed for dinner last night but still came in under calories according to the little message on my home page. Feeling more energised today though so I guess the extra was enough.
Had an unexpected 4.5 km walk today in the mid-day heat after my car broke down. Half of the journey on a concrete footpath sheltered from any breeze. I've done 4 times that distance in the past, including climbing stairs up a cliff face and jogging (in cooler climes). But by the time I got home today I was nearly dead. Turned the aircon on full blast and laid flat out on the cold floor tiles for half an hour before I dared get up. *Surely* this isn't a result of LC is it? I'm past all the breathlessness stuff that I had during my induction phase, and I felt that it was only the heat getting to me rather than the distance, but with all the exercise I've done in the past 6 years (aerobic bootcamps being pushed by a 'sargent-major') I've never had to lay on a cold floor before. The 'heat' was 27°C according to the weather bureau, so not excessive. I've gone out jogging for around 5 kms in 35° temps before now - 3 years ago when I was a baby of 55 years
That was doing letterbox drops so it was 60% jogging/40% walking with a brief stop at each house. I guess with all the food and sugar abuse in my past it's going to take me a long time to fully recover. I've always been overweight so that part isn't contributing to the problem. I'm 83 kgs now and I was 82 kgs during my fittest time.
To me, this is the result of not giving your body enough fuel - not from going low carb. And your body sounds like it is in full on repair mode. Until your body "fixes" everything metabolically it thinks is wrong, it won't go back to fueling you as you are used to. And yes, eating more will help. Sometimes our "guilt-reflex" overrides our recognition of the hunger impulse. I hope your find your balance soon.
Hugs, C0 -
In the beginning of the challenge, I found it pretty easy because I was well trained by my previous tracking.
At this point, I've forgotten most of that training. I do feel like I'm eating more, but I'm also exercising more. In the end, I think I'll still end up with a weight loss. It's been a positive experience, but I think I miss my log telling me "hey, you've had enough macadamia nuts!"0 -
Thank you so much Carly. I've been hungrier than usual today and have listened to it. Was feeling pretty cr*p in the morning but picked up almost instantly after eating brunch, and have been feeling stronger through the day. I think you're right that I wasn't eating enough, and also that my body is still healing from my past. If toxins are stored in fat (and we know that to be true) then I guess I'll be healing to some degree or another all the way until goal weight. God give me patience, and give it to me *now* 0
-
KnitOrMiss wrote: »Remember, too, everyone, that many of us have systematic repair to do to our overall systems. That requires calories above and beyond TDEE. Once the repairs get us functional again, we will start to lose again. Sometimes a gain is required to set you up for further losses.
WHAT? Eat above my TDEE? That's over 1700 calories! I thought we're supposed to have a good deficit below it to lose weight.0 -
wheatlessgirl66 wrote: »KnitOrMiss wrote: »Remember, too, everyone, that many of us have systematic repair to do to our overall systems. That requires calories above and beyond TDEE. Once the repairs get us functional again, we will start to lose again. Sometimes a gain is required to set you up for further losses.
WHAT? Eat above my TDEE? That's over 1700 calories! I thought we're supposed to have a good deficit below it to lose weight.
If the system is broken, we have to fix it before it will be an efficient fat burning machine.
Think about it as a car overdue for an oil change. Not only do you have to change the oil. You need to check your oil filter, your fuel filter, and check all the fluids while you are there, as well as anything that jumps out at you. Say you realize your fan belt is looser than it should be, so you discover you need to replace it.
All of these, even just changing the oil requires more energy than just driving your car (normal functions), right? So therefore, until your engine is in tip top condition, you might require more food to repair everything....
Continuing to eat at a deficit before your engine is repaired or your oil changed, as in this example, you'll still run, but you'll do it as far less efficiency - and something will have to give. If you have to put some of that energy into the repairs, you won't be able to do as much else. And while taking the time to repair the engine means less driving (less loss, etc.) at first, you'll be able to drive further and more efficiently after your engine is repaired...
But, essentially, all this starts to happen normally as we repair out way of eating. Stomach and gut troubles from years of eating wheat/gluten when we'd had an intolerance; insulin resistance from improperly eating, etc., all starts to heal, but it takes time. I think that is why, until our bodies are healed and we relearn hearing out body's voice, that some of us have to ignore that calorie reflex.
I know that I did slowly lose doing calorie counting, but I did not gain any health. Now, without a deficit per my previous numbers (but still at a deficit in things I wasn't tracking before), I am gaining health in leaps and bounds, and the scale is trudging behind.
Everyone is different, but I had to gain a little before I can lose. And my body keeps on with this cycle while LCHF-ing. I lose 4 pounds, gain back 2, then lose 4 more...as a loose example...
I hope this makes sense.
But yes, once your body is running at peak efficiency, your body will require a deficit to lose weight. But on this way of eating, that deficit is defined differently than it was for most folks doing strict CICO / IIFYM....0 -
@KnitOrMiss I've never heard about this before and it surprises me. All I've read is having a deficit below the TDEE. How do I know if I really need to increase my calories that much? Because I'm having trouble losing and I'm obese? I can hardly wrap my mind around eating over 1700 cals/day. Kind of scary. I haven't done that in forever as a steady thing. Maybe on a holiday, etc. I will search to see what else I can find about it on MFP. I Googled, but found nothing. Is this something commonly known and I've just really missed it?0
-
I kind of had to go on faith and stop counting calories for a couple months and let my body level out. Going LCHF helped me kick the cravings, so I'm just eating when I'm hungry. Right now I'm ignoring calories (have been since 1/15 when I started this WOE, and I'm consistently trending down (except the hiccup from massive dehydration I had working that outdoor faire) the whole time. I set my carbs as a limit, my proteins as a range, and eat fats to fill in the gap. I know that this way of things does not work for everyone, but I think that it levels out if you only eat when hungry, not when bored, stressed, etc. When I was tracking, I noticed some days I would eat 1500 calories or less, and other days I would eat almost close to 3000 calories. I understand that your TDEE is lower due to natural aging metabolism, but if you're still 70 some pounds overweight, are you sure your TDEE is 1700 calories a day? That seems low. Even when I was set on MFP's default numbers, at 5'4" and 250 pounds, give or take, my calories for 1 pounds loss per week was between 1700-1800 calories a day. Does age affect the number that much? I'm almost 40, and I haven't noticed a major difference in my calorie allotments vs. someone younger....
The reason I wonder about your TDEE is that mine is somewhere in the 2000's and I don't work out at all. 1700 sounds closer to a BMR - Base Metabolic Rate (what your body burns just existing). I could be way out in left field though, so forgive me for not knowing details of another age/height/weight settings.0 -
@KnitOrMiss Yep, according to the keto calculator my BMR is 1494 and my TDEE is 1792. I'm 68, 5"3" and weigh 219 today. I chose the sedentary level. With 20 carbs/day the calculator put my calories at 1431. I feel like I'm taking up too much of this thread but wanted you to know that the TDEE was set by keto-calculator.ankerl. Thanks for your help! 0
-
wheatlessgirl66 wrote: »I feel like I'm taking up too much of this thread
Not possible, discussion is good
0 -
Out of curiosity for myself using the keto calc:
Age 38, 6'4" 250 male, sedentary - TDEE 2581
Age 68, 6'4" 250 male, sedentary - TDEE 2404
7.4% difference, not insignificant0
This discussion has been closed.