Cutting carbs is more effective than cutting fat...apparently.

ElJefeChief

I've done low-carb (full, hard-core Atkins) and low-calorie. I lost significant weight with both. Ended up gaining back a bunch on the low-carb diet, deluding myself with all the "low carb" pastas, low-sugar candies and ice creams, and triple helpings of bacon, steak, etc.

Calorie counting is so much more transparent, straightforward, waaaay less of a cognitive load and (at least for me) much less subject to my own methods of self-delusion. It's why low-carb dieting works anyways, all successful weight loss approaches capitalize on CICO anyways.

Also have found that calorie counting is a lot cheaper than low-carb dieting. Much less reliance on specialized food. I just eat regular food and can eat regular treats if I want. Seems a lot more sustainable over the long term, at least to me.

lemurcat12

yarwell wrote: »

About 30% of the population falls outside of +/-10% of the predicted BMR so anyone not getting expected results should initially use their weight loss experience to estimate their own TDEE or get it measured.

The US has a lower cut point for "pre diabetes" than the UK but when it comes to insulin resistance I don't think there's a standard ? Several studies seem to rank the upper quartile as insulin resistant and the lower as insulin sensitive leaving 50% in the middle, or similar approaches.

I'm equating pre diabetes and IR, as that seems to be common.

What's the source for 30% outside of +/-10%?

lemurcat12

BarbieAS wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I don't think anyone non-stupid assumes that the calculator is truth. What I always tell people not losing is to tighten up the logging (because that usually is the culprit and its helpful for a doctor visit) and to visit a doctor if that does not help. And for obese people the calculator overestimates calories, whereas most people underestimate them.

And if someone reports an issue with compliance I recommend experimenting with macros. (For example, if someone is always hungry.)

Totally disagree with the idea that poor logging isn't the main reason people don't lose or it wouldn't be helpful to log for people with medical issues (as that helps identify the issue and a doctor should be involved, not just self help low carbing). Also, disagree with the idea that anyone with the slightest degree of IR cannot lose with CICO, that's silly (and what Lindsey seems to be claiming). In reality few people have a TDEE much off their expected one, and those people likely have thyroid issues. People with IR likely have compliance problems.

I don't think that anyone at all said that poor logging isn't the main reason that people don't lose. I know that I said in my first comment that "And a large majority of CICO failures are certainly due to mis-estimating or mis-recording on the "calories in" side, or over-reporting exercise." I completely agree that that's the first assessment that should be made. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras, right?

I think Lindsey suggested that, yes.

I think you and I are basically on the same page.

But, so, so, so many times I see in these forums people say "I'm eating 1,500 calories per day and not losing!!" and most, if not all, of the responses are "well, then you're not really eating 1,500 calories" like that's the only possible solution, even after all of the usual culprits have been addressed.

My response is to tighten logging and if that doesn't help to take that to the doctor. Most doctors assume you were eating more than you thought, so it's useful to be able to say, no, I've been logging. Tracking calories is helpful, IMO, even if it means you discover there's something wrong with your CO. That's my point. (And yes, I think the percentage of people who think they aren't losing at, say, 1200 and the percentage of people who really aren't is vastly different.)

Or does the possibility exist that my TDEE is significantly lower than the calculators would suggest for no reason that is easily identifiable? I really should go get an RMR test done, but there's just nowhere that I've found that can do it a a time/place that I can conveniently get to without taking time off work. I think it's time to make that a priority.

Sure, it could be, and in your situation I would test my RMR. But if my BMR were way off normal I'd want to know that, because there must be a medical cause. That's why I say logging is useful in that situation. The answer can't simply be to eat in a way so I don't mind 800, because no normal female of normal height should require eating so low to lose -- it should be related to a fixable medical condition.