wait, so how many calories can I have on LCHF diet?

39flavours

So after doing low cal for six months and doing well but losing slowly with lots of stalls, I've decided to try carb restriction to lose the last ten pounds. I've been finding it a bit difficult to tell the truth and I'm wondering whether this is because my calorie intake is low so I'm not able to get enough fat in to feel satisfied.
I keep hearing that you still need to watch your calorie intake on low carb and as I've been eating around 1300 cals a day this didn't seem to leave much room for fat.
Also, maybe I'm not restricting my carbs enough? I'm trying for 30-50g but keep over eating as am a bit confused over what foods are most useful to include and I'm getting hungry. Like I had half an avocado as I thought they were pretty low but then looked and it was 6.5g. Then I had creme fraiche and that was 16g. But then if I just eat cheese and cream then that's too many cals right?
Also doesn't too much protein convert to sugar?I'm really worried that I'll end up eating too much and putting weight back on!
Help, not sure I'm doing this right at all!
Ro x

wabmester

When you say you're not satisfied, were you satisfied at 1300 calories before low carb?

Don't worry about the sugar conversion due to protein. Protein is a huge help to keeping hunger in check.

39flavours

Thanks for your reply
Yeah I was used to it, though on workout days I ate more because I would feel wrecked if I didn't! The problem was I stopped losing, I've basically maintained for the last ten weeks and still have a way to go.
My stats are 5'4, 131 lbs, goal 123lbs.
Also concerned about how to keep my workouts up when on LC as I dont think I have the same energy level...

wabmester

It'll be interesting to see if it works for you, but the secret sauce of low-carb is the hunger control. That's partly due to protein and partly due to ketosis.

Fat in your diet will increase the level of ketones, which may help reduce hunger. Try eating to satiety and see where you end up in terms of calories.

Exercise will be tricky for the first few weeks. I'd stick with lower-intensity exercise, and then start cranking up the intensity as you feel more energetic.

You MUST ensure adequate sodium intake, especially if you exercise. Otherwise, you will feel like crap.

39flavours

Ok thanks, I'll try to figure out how to get more fat in without going over 1300. I'm not sure I trust myself to just go on satiety levels though, the reason I put on weight is because I overate in the first place! Though I do get that carbs trigger cravings so without them the tendency to pig out should be less.
Re The salt thing, I've already began to notice how headachy I feel without it!
I would be interested in seeing other's diaries using the same calories if anyone wants to share?
Thanks x :-)

cottagegirl71

feel free to add me - my diary is open and I am at 1350 cal/day and 5'3" - I am pretty new to this way of eating but LOVE how I feel....also read the Launch pad at the beginning of the group - lots of great info there and lots of very friendly supportive people here

39flavours

Oo thanks very much cottagegirl!

Fat4Fuel2

I'm 5'3" and aim for 1400-1600 cal per a day. Feel free to check out my diary for ideas. However, in the initial transition period, you probably will feel a bit off with satiety and such. I know for me, there was a mental adjustment to the volume of food and feeling satisfied.

deksgrl

You could try just looking at carbs and not looking at the calories for a few weeks. Often people are able to break through a stall by taking a diet break. After a few weeks you could try to dial back calories if you are way over. Also, did you recalculate your calories based on your new weight, and set your goal to lose .5 pound per week? Weight loss does typically slow down as you get closer to goal.

39flavours

You're right about that fat4fuel2! It's very weird eating less food that's more calorie dense after so long aiming to eat more food that's less calorie dense! Feels very counter intuitive! Also I'm used to eating more often as well and having to put less effort into my food. It's gonna take a while I think!
Deksgrl, no I haven't recalculated my calories but I think 1300 is my limit, I couldn't survive on less! That's supposed to give me 1 lb loss but it's more like .5 per month! I'm a lightly active teacher so need a bit of fuel!
Really appreciate all the advice! X

Fat4Fuel2

rowanshepherd3 wrote: »

I'm a lightly active teacher so need a bit of fuel!
Really appreciate all the advice! X

I'm a teacher too! Have you tried cycling calories a little bit? I know some days for me, when I'm running after kids more or just being more active, I'm way hungrier. Other days I can eat about 1000 and be really full. It usually evens out over the week and gives me some wiggle room for hungry days or heavy lifting days.

39flavours

Kids wear you out alright! Yeah I was wondering about carb cycling...doesn't it just set you back to square one though and you have to go through all the uncomfortable stuff every time you want to move to low carb? Do you find it difficult to lift on low carb days then? I haven't tried yet...

deksgrl

rowanshepherd3 wrote: »

You're right about that fat4fuel2! It's very weird eating less food that's more calorie dense after so long aiming to eat more food that's less calorie dense! Feels very counter intuitive! Also I'm used to eating more often as well and having to put less effort into my food. It's gonna take a while I think!
Deksgrl, no I haven't recalculated my calories but I think 1300 is my limit, I couldn't survive on less! That's supposed to give me 1 lb loss but it's more like .5 per month! I'm a lightly active teacher so need a bit of fuel!
Really appreciate all the advice! X

It will give you more calories to eat if you set it to .5 pound a week instead of 1 pound.

39flavours

Sure but how will that help me lose if I'm already stalled when eating 1300?

deksgrl

rowanshepherd3 wrote: »

Sure but how will that help me lose if I'm already stalled when eating 1300?

Sometimes your body gets tired of the low level of calories and needs more. Your body adapts to what you give it.

KarlaYP

Sometimes increasing cals for a day or two (like 200cals) can break a stall. Our bodies seem to get comfy where they are and we have to shake it up a bit, so to speak. You are a male? I would think that 1300 cals is too much of a deficit, but that's just my opinion.

glossbones

Chances are that changing the quality of your 1300 calories will make a big difference and break the stall.

Have you played with the keto calculator at http://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/ yet? It should help you set your goals.

yarwell

75g of protein should be sufficient, with 25g of carbs you're at 400 cal which leaves space for 100g or 900 cals of fat.

39flavours

I've never really accepted the eat more to lose theory but I do find after a weekend away I do manage to lose what I put on easily. What got me interested in low carb was after a weekend away where I was way over for three days I came home and got straight into LC, within a week I was 2 lbs below my lowest weight and dead impressed!
I'm not male, just got a boys name! 35yr old female!
I try to get 130g of protein (one g per lb body weight) as I do resistance training and find it helps, so I'll have a look at that calculator thingy x thanks peeps

yarwell

130 grams is a lot of protein with Phinney recommending 1.5 - 2 g per kg of ideal body weight. Fair bit of evidence that 75 grams is enough.

39flavours

Wow that calculator is fantastic! This is what I got:

34/F/5'3" | CW 131 | 25% BF | Lightly active

* 1350 kcal Goal, a 22% deficit. (1087 min, 1734 max)
* 25g Carbohydrates
* 98g Protein (59g min, 98g max)
* 95g Fat (67g min, 138g max)

I'll have another go with 75g protein and see how it looks as you guys know what's what

Thanks so much! X

tishball

I think due to the fat, and protein you need more calories, you will be amazed how full you feel , when you change eating and are still losing weight, give it a week or ten days, it works, and it's so much easier than watching the calories all the time.

deksgrl

rowanshepherd3 wrote: »

I've never really accepted the eat more to lose theory

Well, the eat more theory does not mean "eat more than your energy expenditure". You are still going to be eating below TDEE. The goal there is basically find the highest calorie level where you can still lose, thereby preventing metabolic adaptation to the lower amount of calories.

A 22% deficit to lose the last 10 pounds is steep. You might do better with a 15% deficit.

lauraesh0384

I'm 5'6" with 20 lbs left to lose and right now I eat 1200-1400.

39flavours

The goal there is basically find the highest calorie level where you can still lose, thereby preventing metabolic adaptation to the lower amount of calories.

Think I need to find out more about this, why would you get metabolic adaption to lower calories but not higher?

yarwell

The hypothesis is that "large" deficits lead to reductions in RMR. The evidence is weak, if not contradictory. The reductions seen are seldom as big as a candy bar.

It's an approach favoured by people that struggle to control their eating and are happy to lose very slowly, in my opinion.

bluefish86

I agree with @yarwell.

The benefit of higher calorie (lower deficit) seems to be more aboutsustainability. If you're eating 1300 cals and are starving hungry all the time, you're more likely to cheat and blow your deficit anyway.

deksgrl

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=metabolic+adaptation&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&as_vis=1

39flavours

Obvs to be able to eat more and still lose at a steady rate i.e. .5 lb a week would be great but you can't expect to eat more and lose more than when you ate less surely?

Thanks for digging out those studies deksgrl, unfortunately they made no sense to me though, too much science speak! What was is that you were pointing out there?

KnitOrMiss

Many of us find that when our body isn't fighting to process carbs, it becomes more efficient, and as a baseline burns more calories naturally in this fat burning state. Therefore, I can eat more calories now than I could just counting calories and still be eating at a deficit due to the state of my metabolism and the way my body handles the types of food I'm eating now.

Dragonwolf

rowanshepherd3 wrote: »

Obvs to be able to eat more and still lose at a steady rate i.e. .5 lb a week would be great but you can't expect to eat more and lose more than when you ate less surely?

Thanks for digging out those studies deksgrl, unfortunately they made no sense to me though, too much science speak! What was is that you were pointing out there?

Actually, there are situations in which you can eat more an lose at the same or a faster rate.

The body is not a bomb calorimeter. Protein, fat, and carbohydrates are not burned, per se, but rather disassembled. Carbohydrates, even "complex" carbohydrates are either easy to disassemble (starches, sugars, etc) and get broken down quickly, or are impossible to disassemble (fiber) and get sent straight to the intestines. Protein and fat are harder to disassemble (and protein is harder, still, to be converted into a usable form of energy), requiring both more time and more energy in which to do it.

Even after digestion, the body responds differently to different inputs -- fructose gets sent straight to the liver to be turned into triglycerides, glucose goes straight into the bloodstream, amino acids (proteins) and fatty acids go to the liver to be stored or packaged up into lipoproteins to be sent to various parts of the body for fuel and repair. These all take different amounts of energy and require different hormones, and those different hormones send different signals to the brain.

When you eat a high carbohydrate diet, all the carbohydrates that aren't fiber get broken down into sugar. The glucose part of that gets sent into the bloodstream, raising your blood sugar levels. Because glucose is a neurotoxin at high concentrations, the body attempts to keep a tight reign on the blood glucose levels. Insulin is called upon to deal with it. If you're insulin sensitive, then it gets dealt with fairly quickly and easily, but the more you subject yourself to this cycle without having a use for all the stored glucose, the more resistant your cells become to taking it (they're full, basically). When you become insulin resistant, your body has to make more insulin in order to get the sugar into the cells. However, that's also accompanied by hyperinsulinemia -- elevated insulin levels. Hyperinsulinemia can either be caused by something internal (the "off" switch is faulty) or external (the resulting blood sugar crash forces you to eat every couple of hours, so you're never fully done digesting the last meal and allowing insulin to drop). High levels of insulin tell the brain and rest of the body that there is fuel to be dealt with before turning to fat stores, so the fat cells remain "closed" or "input only." The result is difficulty losing weight with a sane amount of calories on a high carb diet.

Or, you can lower your carbohydrates, which lowers the amount of glucose you're putting into your body, and ultimately the amount of insulin running around, and eat a sane amount of food and lose at least as much weight, if not more.

This is just one of the processes that affects weight loss or retention. There are a number of others, including the ones involving cortisol, glucagon, thyroid, the full range of sex hormones and their balance, leptin, ghrelin, and more. And that doesn't even get into the stuff about resting metabolic rate changes after prolonged severe calorie restriction.

I'm actually a pretty good example of how changing what you eat can affect your weight more than changing how much you eat.

Here's my weight for the past year:



Note how straight those lines are until recently (yes, those are swaths of months where my weight didn't go below that level, but bounced from there often to a pound or two higher and then between that higher number and about 3-5lbs above that). That first big jump is when I stopped taking Metformin, due to the horrid side effects and limited results I was getting. The second big jump is who the hell knows what. Seriously, my body seemed to have decided that New Year's meant getting back the other half of what I lost when I first started the Metformin.

Here is my caloric intake for the past 90 days (well, the days I logged, I admittedly have been spotty lately, but what I eat is pretty consistent), unfortunately, MFP's logs don't go back any farther for this metric:



You'll see, though, that my net caloric intake hasn't really changed much. There are still the occasional day that I'm way over, and the occasional days that I'm under to one degree or another. And yes, there are days where I'm way under net calories, because I don't typically get as hungry on my more active days. While this doesn't show the full year, this has been pretty consistently my caloric intake for the past year. In fact, my caloric intake has held pretty steady in that range for several years at this point, but it was only in the past 45 days or so that the chart has started that downward trend. So what's different?

Am I more active? Nope. In fact, I'm actually less active than I was this time last year.

Is my logging more accurate? Not really. I still eyeball, measure some things, and rely more on packaging weights and spacial recognition to determine amounts. Weighing everything I eat would be an exercise in disordered eating for me, I learned that a long time ago. One would actually think I should be having a harder time now, because a higher fat diet means a smaller margin of error, especially as I decreased the amount of low-calorie foods I was consuming.

So, if I'm less active, but still eating the same, how is it that I'm losing weight now, when I wasn't for several years (you can't see that there, but the first part of that chart is pretty representative of the past 4-5 years at this point, with the exception of corresponding drops when I started the Metformin), what changed?

The composition of my diet.

In my case, I had to go all the way to a carnivorous way of eating and eliminate plants from my diet for the time being. My body responded how you see there. That last peak before it starts dropping was 3/24, a day or two after Easter. I started my new way of eating that Wednesday. And I wasn't coming from SAD, either. I'd been Primal for the past 5 years or so, and have been reducing my carbs down from 100g since the time I started that. Before I went to carnivore, my carb intake averaged 50g and some days even quite a bit less. For me, something in even a whole-foods based standard low carb/ketogenic diet was triggering my body to hold on to weight. Once I dropped the foods that weren't working for me, my weight immediately started dropping in a way that it never has before.