Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Low carb and vegetables

1141516171820»

Replies

  • auddiiauddii Posts: 15,410Member Member Posts: 15,410Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    Yep, I am a volume eater as well. It was definitely something to adjust to when I did a keto diet. I did find ways to continue to make it work. On those days when I wanted to eat a lot...I would have a big bowl of eggbeaters with some spinach and mushrooms in it. I also did net 50 grams though, not 20 grams. I don't think I could make that work and not want to stab myself with a spoon.

    Agreed. And I guess that's another reason why I find myself eating larger quantities of vegetables (enough that I could never follow keto). If it's a liquidy lunch (soup or stew), then I'm up at 500g ish as well; if it's just a lean protein with seasoning, it's only about 150g of meat, but I add 160-180g of a vegetable (usually frozen green beans).
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    It seems more and more that the debate section is turning into splitting hairs, making judgments, looking to be "right" at all costs, mocking, general goofing off, thread drift to extremes, and using those reduced standards of "debate" against extreme examples that often don't exist on any given thread.

    I can understand enjoying and partaking in all of the above, if the debate was about politics, current events, crime statistics, fashion or something along those lines.

    But food? Exercise? Seems a bit silly. Especially when it comes to food, which, to me, is love, enjoyment and life itself. For a lot of folks on this site, food is mostly about what to eat to look as good as possible. It's a vanity thing and I get it. It's that for me too, to a large extend. And yeah yeah, I don't expect the health mongers and experts in the debate section to admit to the vanity hypothesis or agree, but yeah, I still think so. No double blind, peer reviewed, academic, evidenced based articles to back this up, sorry. But most people are talking about food and/or exercise at MFP in relation to what their butt or chest looks like. Which is a good reality check and a great reason not to take this site very seriously.

    When food is "debated", I'm pretty sure that's a sign we have too much of it available for our own good and it's become a study, a labor, some weird kind of distraction or a point of contention.

    Here's a pic of a gorgeous satiating meal, full of vegetables, packed with enough calories for an entire day and containing less than 100 grams of carbohydrates. For purposes of viewing happiness and vegetable calmness.

    2e4xuga01a0y.jpg

    That's just wrong.

    Also either it's the perspective or that meal containing enough calories for an entire day looks pretty small, size wise.

    It's a 9.8 oz. of chopped dark meat roasted chicken with skin, 3/4 of a pound of string beans and carrots sautéed in 2 tablespoons of olive oil, a cup of condensed, pureed butternut squash, 6 ounces of blackberries, a half cup of roasted, salted, deluxe mixed nuts and one third of a cup of cream to be mixed in with the vials of coffee crystals, unsweetened cocoa powder and Splenda sweetened hazelnut syrup for a hot decaf mocha.

    1,624 calories, 99 grams of carbohydrate, 97 grams of fat and 101 grams of protein.

    Maybe not enough nourishment for Marky Mark wearing a mouse head, but it covers the nutritional bases for me.

    Went over it in another thread, it is Jeff Seid with a mouse head. Mark Wahlberg isn't shabby, but he's nowhere near that -dose- err, level.
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?

    Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.

    No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.

    If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
    True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?

    Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.

    No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.

    If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
    True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.

    Whether the knowledge is needed or not, there plenty of low carbers that seem to feel that biologically and mathematically, a deficit itself is not required. There are authors like Taubes that tout the insulin hypothesis.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?

    Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.

    No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.

    If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
    True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.

    I think that varies a lot. I've read a lot from low carbers and paleo types who stop losing (I used to be interested in paleo, so followed it at various sites and podcasts, but I've seen it on this forum and offline too). From my own experience in doing paleo and dropping my carbs some, it makes sense, as at first you almost accidentally cut calories a lot, as you cut out a lot of what you were eating -- and this will be more extreme for people who tended to overconsume starches or sugars, which wasn't so much me -- and don't know what to replace it with. For example, lots of people do it and still seem scared of fats or stick to normal portion sizes of proteins (initially when I did paleo I still was measuring out 3 oz of meat, which made no real sense calorie-wise). Plus, for many of us motivation when starting out tends to remove any hunger feelings (I am someone who did 900 calories without realizing it 'til I logged on MFP and got over the stupidity).

    Typically that wears off as you get used to eating more of the higher cal foods you are able to eat, and adjust to the new diet. For example, I wasn't eating much cheese when I first was dieting and had lower carbs (well, part of that was I was doing paleo at first, but more was because I think of cheese as a food that should be eaten sparingly). Had I kept doing lower carb and adjusted to eating more high fat meats and cheese, I could easily go way beyond my maintenance calories. Indeed, I attribute a big chunk of my weight gain to the fact I can consume an insane number of calories in high quality cheese (my favorite after-dinner snack, far beyond any sweet, and something commonly available at get-togethers I go to and so on). I can also easily eat far more calories than I could in steak or higher fat cuts of beef (prime rib, even a less lean burger, no bun), and that's despite the fact that I (sacrilege, I know) don't care that much about bacon -- of course, part of my irritation with bacon is that it is completely unsatiating for me.

    I expect there are some for whom this is not true, or who really primarily overate due to appetite (never my issue) and found a huge change with keto, but given how common hedonic eating is I expect even that gets harder to do over time for most, as one starts taking full advantage of the pleasures of the permitted foods, and so requires mindfulness (which is a form of watching calories). At least if one has foodie or gourmand tendencies at all.

    BecomingBane and I discussed veganism, as I said my experience (awhile back) was that unlike vegetarianism I'd found that I lost weight even when not trying when doing a plant-based diet, since I tend to get lots of calories from foods that include dairy and eggs. He said that he found that so at first but then adjusted to the treats you could eat and so after time it wasn't much different. I think that's probably common with all kinds of diets that involve significant alterations in what foods are included.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?

    Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.

    No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.

    If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
    True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.

    Whether the knowledge is needed or not, there plenty of low carbers that seem to feel that biologically and mathematically, a deficit itself is not required. There are authors like Taubes that tout the insulin hypothesis.

    I don't think that is entirely true. Sure there are a few who don't understand that CO must be greater than CI, but I I don't think that is the point most of us make. I think the more common statements are that the diet is often satiating so a lower CI is easier to achieve, and that the diet raises CO for some making a previously required low caloric level to be not required.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,088Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,088Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?

    Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.

    No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.

    If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
    True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.

    Whether the knowledge is needed or not, there plenty of low carbers that seem to feel that biologically and mathematically, a deficit itself is not required. There are authors like Taubes that tout the insulin hypothesis.

    I don't think that is entirely true. Sure there are a few who don't understand that CO must be greater than CI, but I I don't think that is the point most of us make. I think the more common statements are that the diet is often satiating so a lower CI is easier to achieve, and that the diet raises CO for some making a previously required low caloric level to be not required.

    Satiety can definitely help lower CI, but going LCHF would not increase CO. If anything, it will decrease it due to the lower TEF of fat as compared to protein and carbs. If anything raises CO, it's a subsequent increase in activity by trying to live a healthier lifestyle.
  • lithezebralithezebra Posts: 3,684Member Member Posts: 3,684Member Member
    Hypothetically, you could increase CO at the beginning of a ketogenic diet, because of ketones excreted in urine. That's CI that get wasted. The ketones excreted slows down after an initial period of adaptation.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,088Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,088Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    lithezebra wrote: »
    Hypothetically, you could increase CO at the beginning of a ketogenic diet, because of ketones excreted in urine. That's CI that get wasted. The ketones excreted slows down after an initial period of adaptation.

    So excretion would be high enough to offset the difference between diets, assumption went from a higher carb diet to Keto? And how long we talking? Adaptation is 2-3 weeks to become fully adapted correct?
  • stealthqstealthq Posts: 4,307Member Member Posts: 4,307Member Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    It seems more and more that the debate section is turning into splitting hairs, making judgments, looking to be "right" at all costs, mocking, general goofing off, thread drift to extremes, and using those reduced standards of "debate" against extreme examples that often don't exist on any given thread.

    I can understand enjoying and partaking in all of the above, if the debate was about politics, current events, crime statistics, fashion or something along those lines.

    But food? Exercise? Seems a bit silly. Especially when it comes to food, which, to me, is love, enjoyment and life itself. For a lot of folks on this site, food is mostly about what to eat to look as good as possible. It's a vanity thing and I get it. It's that for me too, to a large extend. And yeah yeah, I don't expect the health mongers and experts in the debate section to admit to the vanity hypothesis or agree, but yeah, I still think so. No double blind, peer reviewed, academic, evidenced based articles to back this up, sorry. But most people are talking about food and/or exercise at MFP in relation to what their butt or chest looks like. Which is a good reality check and a great reason not to take this site very seriously.

    When food is "debated", I'm pretty sure that's a sign we have too much of it available for our own good and it's become a study, a labor, some weird kind of distraction or a point of contention.

    Here's a pic of a gorgeous satiating meal, full of vegetables, packed with enough calories for an entire day and containing less than 100 grams of carbohydrates. For purposes of viewing happiness and vegetable calmness.

    2e4xuga01a0y.jpg

    Yeah, I'd have to agree with shell1005. That would not satisfy me for a day. Not even close. And it's 400 cals above what I eat on a non-exercise day to boot - though I may be bumping that up soon. On Trendweight it looks like I may be losing quite a bit faster than intended (oops).

    That type of diet would not work for me at all, though obviously it works great for others.

    I mean, don't get me wrong, most of the things in that pic are things I'd be happy to eat with slight modification - swapping for leaner meats and ditching almost all of the oil (hate oily veg) and cream. Add in a few sunny side up eggs and some dry toast to dip in the yolks, and I'd be pretty good. Better if there were room for some mushrooms and cherry tomatoes as well.

    The thing is, even when I eat some dessert because I have the room to spare it's not that unusual for me to be < 100g carbs total. I don't consider that low carb, thought that was < 50g. I'd have thought 75-150g carbs to be moderate.

    ETA: And ditching the condensed pureed squash (never heard of such a thing) for cubed, roasted squash. Very few nuts, too - and those would be as half a serving of nut butter (because I like a smaller amt than most seem to).
    edited March 2016
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?

    Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.

    No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.

    If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
    True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.

    Whether the knowledge is needed or not, there plenty of low carbers that seem to feel that biologically and mathematically, a deficit itself is not required. There are authors like Taubes that tout the insulin hypothesis.

    I don't think that is entirely true. Sure there are a few who don't understand that CO must be greater than CI, but I I don't think that is the point most of us make. I think the more common statements are that the diet is often satiating so a lower CI is easier to achieve, and that the diet raises CO for some making a previously required low caloric level to be not required.

    Satiety can definitely help lower CI, but going LCHF would not increase CO. If anything, it will decrease it due to the lower TEF of fat as compared to protein and carbs. If anything raises CO, it's a subsequent increase in activity by trying to live a healthier lifestyle.

    I had a fast weight loss with LCHF which could not be accounted for by my calorie deficit. I was eating 1500kcal and lost 40 lbs in just over four months to get to a mid BMI. I now eat around 2000-2500 kcal per day and am sedentary, not even coaching any sports recently, and I am still slowly losing.... By slowly I mean about 1/2 a pound per month. To me that looks like a very LCHF either raised my CO, or my TDEE is higher than 2500kcal, or there actually is some magic in the diet.

    It seems to happen to a fair number of other low carbers too. It doesn't appear to be just me.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?

    Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.

    No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.

    If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
    True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.

    Whether the knowledge is needed or not, there plenty of low carbers that seem to feel that biologically and mathematically, a deficit itself is not required. There are authors like Taubes that tout the insulin hypothesis.

    I don't think that is entirely true. Sure there are a few who don't understand that CO must be greater than CI, but I I don't think that is the point most of us make. I think the more common statements are that the diet is often satiating so a lower CI is easier to achieve, and that the diet raises CO for some making a previously required low caloric level to be not required.

    Satiety can definitely help lower CI, but going LCHF would not increase CO. If anything, it will decrease it due to the lower TEF of fat as compared to protein and carbs. If anything raises CO, it's a subsequent increase in activity by trying to live a healthier lifestyle.

    I had a fast weight loss with LCHF which could not be accounted for by my calorie deficit. I was eating 1500kcal and lost 40 lbs in just over four months to get to a mid BMI. I now eat around 2000-2500 kcal per day and am sedentary, not even coaching any sports recently, and I am still slowly losing.... By slowly I mean about 1/2 a pound per month. To me that looks like a very LCHF either raised my CO, or my TDEE is higher than 2500kcal, or there actually is some magic in the diet.

    It seems to happen to a fair number of other low carbers too. It doesn't appear to be just me.

    It seems to happen to none with access to metabolic wards.
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?

    Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.

    No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.

    If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
    True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.

    Whether the knowledge is needed or not, there plenty of low carbers that seem to feel that biologically and mathematically, a deficit itself is not required. There are authors like Taubes that tout the insulin hypothesis.

    I don't think that is entirely true. Sure there are a few who don't understand that CO must be greater than CI, but I I don't think that is the point most of us make. I think the more common statements are that the diet is often satiating so a lower CI is easier to achieve, and that the diet raises CO for some making a previously required low caloric level to be not required.

    Satiety can definitely help lower CI, but going LCHF would not increase CO. If anything, it will decrease it due to the lower TEF of fat as compared to protein and carbs. If anything raises CO, it's a subsequent increase in activity by trying to live a healthier lifestyle.

    I had a fast weight loss with LCHF which could not be accounted for by my calorie deficit. I was eating 1500kcal and lost 40 lbs in just over four months to get to a mid BMI. I now eat around 2000-2500 kcal per day and am sedentary, not even coaching any sports recently, and I am still slowly losing.... By slowly I mean about 1/2 a pound per month. To me that looks like a very LCHF either raised my CO, or my TDEE is higher than 2500kcal, or there actually is some magic in the diet.

    It seems to happen to a fair number of other low carbers too. It doesn't appear to be just me.

    Well, you're either peeing/pooping out an obscene amount of extra calories, which I can't imagine a healthy body would ever want to do under any circumstances, or your CO somehow got higher in another way. Assuming your intake is accurate.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    I really AM a special snowflake? Yeah....LOL Who knows.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I really AM a special snowflake? Yeah....LOL Who knows.

    Welp, find Taubes's publisher.
This discussion has been closed.