Disadvantages of Keto diet
Options
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.6 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? And, as you point out...as many calories as you want to eat - not a license to gorge. Eat until YOU are satisfied. You got it, exactly.1 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.5 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.2 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)
Yup, that's a big if for me. I'm not there yet. If I stop logging, I quickly find calorie creep sets in, and I end up over eating.
I'm hoping someday. Because logging can get tedious.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)
Yup, that's a big if for me. I'm not there yet. If I stop logging, I quickly find calorie creep sets in, and I end up over eating.
I'm hoping someday. Because logging can get tedious.
This is why I love, and have actually been able to stick with, low carb. I can finally trust my hunger cues. This is also why it makes me cringe when low carb dieters (usually newbies) say "you can eat all you want" on LC. Yeeeeeeaaaahhhhh....maybe - IF your hunger cues get properly restored, IF you were not a boredom/emotional eater in the first place, and IF "as much as you want" is translated as "to satiety" rather than to "stuffed at every meal". Those are big "ifs". For me it works, but all three of those conditions are at play. If any of the above is not true, you'll still need to watch calories.
3 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)
Yup, that's a big if for me. I'm not there yet. If I stop logging, I quickly find calorie creep sets in, and I end up over eating.
I'm hoping someday. Because logging can get tedious.
I find i can maintain my weight pretty easily through food modification and exercise. But at the level i am at and trying to get into single digit body fat, i find that logging helps. And i like stastical analysis.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)
Yup, that's a big if for me. I'm not there yet. If I stop logging, I quickly find calorie creep sets in, and I end up over eating.
I'm hoping someday. Because logging can get tedious.
This is why I love, and have actually been able to stick with, low carb. I can finally trust my hunger cues. This is also why it makes me cringe when low carb dieters (usually newbies) say "you can eat all you want" on LC. Yeeeeeeaaaahhhhh....maybe - IF your hunger cues get properly restored, IF you were not a boredom/emotional eater in the first place, and IF "as much as you want" is translated as "to satiety" rather than to "stuffed at every meal". Those are big "ifs". For me it works, but all three of those conditions are at play. If any of the above is not true, you'll still need to watch calories.
Unfortunately for me, there isn't a quick fix that I've found. I tend to binge, and it doesn't really matter on what. I've binged on ice cream, broccoli, etc. No one food triggers. And fat does not magically tell me I'm full. I've eaten a half a jar (40oz jar) of peanut butter in one sitting. That's about a lb of peanut butter.0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)
Yup, that's a big if for me. I'm not there yet. If I stop logging, I quickly find calorie creep sets in, and I end up over eating.
I'm hoping someday. Because logging can get tedious.
This is why I love, and have actually been able to stick with, low carb. I can finally trust my hunger cues. This is also why it makes me cringe when low carb dieters (usually newbies) say "you can eat all you want" on LC. Yeeeeeeaaaahhhhh....maybe - IF your hunger cues get properly restored, IF you were not a boredom/emotional eater in the first place, and IF "as much as you want" is translated as "to satiety" rather than to "stuffed at every meal". Those are big "ifs". For me it works, but all three of those conditions are at play. If any of the above is not true, you'll still need to watch calories.
I hear you. I'm also not a big fan of advice to lower carbs even lower (when they're already at very low, ketogenic levels) if people aren't losing weight. If calorie counting isn't sustainable good eating habits (i.e. less/no snacking), improving the quality of your diet (more whole foods) and incorporating more activity or deliberate exercise into your day would serve most people better long term, IMO. I have a solid calorie counting background though so those things make sense to me.
But I absolutely know peoples carb tolerance varies. I personally need to keep my carbs lower than a lot of other people to have a normal appetite and I don't appreciate anyone advising to eat more carbs so I tend to keep that advice/opinion to myself.
1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)
Yup, that's a big if for me. I'm not there yet. If I stop logging, I quickly find calorie creep sets in, and I end up over eating.
I'm hoping someday. Because logging can get tedious.
This is why I love, and have actually been able to stick with, low carb. I can finally trust my hunger cues. This is also why it makes me cringe when low carb dieters (usually newbies) say "you can eat all you want" on LC. Yeeeeeeaaaahhhhh....maybe - IF your hunger cues get properly restored, IF you were not a boredom/emotional eater in the first place, and IF "as much as you want" is translated as "to satiety" rather than to "stuffed at every meal". Those are big "ifs". For me it works, but all three of those conditions are at play. If any of the above is not true, you'll still need to watch calories.
Unfortunately for me, there isn't a quick fix that I've found. I tend to binge, and it doesn't really matter on what. I've binged on ice cream, broccoli, etc. No one food triggers. And fat does not magically tell me I'm full. I've eaten a half a jar (40oz jar) of peanut butter in one sitting. That's about a lb of peanut butter.
I'm not advising/suggesting/pushing a low carb diet on you at all or suggesting it would "fix" your issues. But I need to eat sustained ketogenic level of carbs in order to have a normal appetite. Adding fat to a moderate carb diet does absolutely nothing for me - I need to be in a light state of ketosis for that.1 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)
Yup, that's a big if for me. I'm not there yet. If I stop logging, I quickly find calorie creep sets in, and I end up over eating.
I'm hoping someday. Because logging can get tedious.
This is why I love, and have actually been able to stick with, low carb. I can finally trust my hunger cues. This is also why it makes me cringe when low carb dieters (usually newbies) say "you can eat all you want" on LC. Yeeeeeeaaaahhhhh....maybe - IF your hunger cues get properly restored, IF you were not a boredom/emotional eater in the first place, and IF "as much as you want" is translated as "to satiety" rather than to "stuffed at every meal". Those are big "ifs". For me it works, but all three of those conditions are at play. If any of the above is not true, you'll still need to watch calories.
Unfortunately for me, there isn't a quick fix that I've found. I tend to binge, and it doesn't really matter on what. I've binged on ice cream, broccoli, etc. No one food triggers. And fat does not magically tell me I'm full. I've eaten a half a jar (40oz jar) of peanut butter in one sitting. That's about a lb of peanut butter.
I'm not advising/suggesting/pushing a low carb diet on you at all or suggesting it would "fix" your issues. But I need to eat sustained ketogenic level of carbs in order to have a normal appetite. Adding fat to a moderate carb diet does absolutely nothing for me - I need to be in a light state of ketosis for that.
Yeah, and when I tried low carb I ended up with very low blood sugars and hypoglycemia that could not be controlled (it did not help that this was compounded by anxiety issues).
I guess I'm lowish carbs most days, and I eat the majority of the carbs I do have at dinner and later. It's actually a rather strange eating pattern, but works for me, and it's what best controls both hunger and actual blood sugar problems. There are days I eat more carbs, but I also usually much more those days in general (I save up more calories for weekends).0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)
Yup, that's a big if for me. I'm not there yet. If I stop logging, I quickly find calorie creep sets in, and I end up over eating.
I'm hoping someday. Because logging can get tedious.
As far as I know, the top 2 predictors of RE-weight-gain are: Not logging food eaten, and Stopping your exercise.
I agree - it is tedious. Although I don't "count", I do log, fastidiously. If I see any trends or even spikes, I can review my past day(s) and see if anything changed. Yeah, it'd be nice if we didn't have to. But some of us, myself included, have to be very careful about what goes in. :-)0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »To me, it was anything but simple...
Weight loss is math. Eat fewer calories than you burn and you will lose weight. Doesn't matter how you do it. Eating less than you burn, mathematically, the ONLY way to lose weight! Congrats on the 90 pounds. Quite an accomplishment.
Here's how I thought about it...
I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Your body has 3 sources of energy. In order of efficiency, your body burns: Carbohydrates, Fat, Protein.
Eating low-carb (note, not NO carb), since there are very few carbs...my body would use the few carbs I eat, then turn to burning body fat for energy. The body fat is split into ketones and glucose. That's where the weight-loss happens.
For me, eating low-carb gives me a lot more freedom in food choices - foods I can enjoy every day at quantities that are satisfying to me. Things I can live with eating every day.
Do I count calories? Hmmm....not really. I do track them though, and I end up very consistently hitting about the same numbers. Point is, one doesn't HAVE to. An important thing is to have enough fat where you are not hungry.
Eating low carb is NOT A LICENSE TO GORGE.
Very simple...one must eat fewer calories than one burns to lose weight. Doesn't matter if those calories are from Carbs, Fat, or Protein.
Weight loss is all about portion control.
Counting calories does NOT mean you have to go low fat. You can count calories with KETO. It's tools. Nothing more, nothing less. The dietary strategy is preference and adherence.
I think you didn't read my post.
I definitely read it. Why would YOU have to eat low fat if you counted calories?
And these aren't fights, they are questions.
"For me", I need the volume of food in order to be feel. And I like to like the taste of the food I'm eating. So, if I had to count calories, and stay under my REE + exercise, AND eat larger amounts of food, I'd have to eat low-fat. Eating keto, I can have much more fat (better for satiety) and increased quantities of food, but overall, the calories are fine - I just don't count them. I eat them, and I track them, and they happen to add up to pretty consistent numbers. But....I don't evaluate calories before eating. I basically avoid any added sugar which keeps my in the low-carb (not no carb) territory. I do not gorge. I eat until I an satisfied. If I'm hungry, I grab an egg, or a handful of macadamias, or a couple slices of salami, or a chuck of real good cheese - I don't let myself go hungry, basically. If I were counting calories, those things would take up a good chuck of my daily allowance.
Anyhow, we are all different, and I shared what I think were disadvantages for me - yours should be different. Thank God the world isn't full of you's or me's.
Have a nice day, and good luck on your health!
I wonder how a high fat diet is going to have more volume.
In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
This is it exactly. I like to "feel full", and its the good fats I eat which make me feel full. Not that hard to figure out, yeah? You got it, exactly.
And all of that can be done using a calorie counter. Dietary strategies are preference of adherence. Calorie counters, fitbits, scales, etc.. are tools to measure.
Yeah, I mean I guess I'm still lost. Eat a high fat day. At the end of the day, log what you ate. You just counted your calories. If you end up losing weight, it's because the calories you're logging are less than the amount of calories you're burning.
The logging or not logging of those calories in no way affects anything.
Exactly. There's no need to count calories if you don't want to eating low carb. (Assuming the diet restores your natural appetite, of course.)
Yup, that's a big if for me. I'm not there yet. If I stop logging, I quickly find calorie creep sets in, and I end up over eating.
I'm hoping someday. Because logging can get tedious.
This is why I love, and have actually been able to stick with, low carb. I can finally trust my hunger cues. This is also why it makes me cringe when low carb dieters (usually newbies) say "you can eat all you want" on LC. Yeeeeeeaaaahhhhh....maybe - IF your hunger cues get properly restored, IF you were not a boredom/emotional eater in the first place, and IF "as much as you want" is translated as "to satiety" rather than to "stuffed at every meal". Those are big "ifs". For me it works, but all three of those conditions are at play. If any of the above is not true, you'll still need to watch calories.
Yes. Before I started my lifestyle change (NOT DIET) to eat fewer carbs, I considered many options. And, like it or not, the Atkins book resonated with me. I read it cover-to-cover before starting. I think many folks who criticize it may not've read it - but doesn't matter. He very clearly says it is NOT a license to gorge. You do not EAT AS MUCH AS YOU WANT, kinda sorta. You can eat until you are satisfied, not stuffed. And that way, you can also snack responsibly when you're hungry and not trip on it. I usually snack between breakfast & lunch, and between lunch & dinner. I grab a boiled egg, celery and peanut butter, a chunk of GOOD cheese, a handful of macadamias, or even a cup of coffee with coconut oil or heavy whipping cream (careful there with that last one). I am really not hungry almost ever. And I am eating far fewer calories than I was when I was at 400 pounds. I am at 172 now, eating more veggies and fruits than ever, feeling great, playing sports again, blah blah blah.... Never out of energy, etc. So, fo ME, it works.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Satisfying is one thing, quantities is another. If you really follow a vegan diet you'll can eat a lot more than almost any other approach. May not be worth it, but carbs are in general low calorie foods. Even sugar is only 4 kc/gram. It goes down from there.
That would be a disadvantage of a keto diet. If you system is messed up so you don't feel full, it would be much easier to over eat on a high fat diet. Any diet can contribute to weight gain if you eat too much.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I could count calories. That would require me to eat a lot of low-fat foods or quantities that were not satisfying to me. But I'd lose weight. My fear, up front, was that once I'd hit my goal, I couldn't stick with it. Dunno, didn't really try.
Satisfying is one thing, quantities is another. If you really follow a vegan diet you'll can eat a lot more than almost any other approach. May not be worth it, but carbs are in general low calorie foods. Even sugar is only 4 kc/gram. It goes down from there.
That would be a disadvantage of a keto diet. If you system is messed up so you don't feel full, it would be much easier to over eat on a high fat diet. Any diet can contribute to weight gain if you eat too much.
Yeah, agreed. I also studied nutrition in college. I think a vegan diet (mean what you eat, not a "diet" per se) is far healthier, in general, than anything else you can do for yourself. I try and have a vegan day once every couple weeks, but it's hard for me. Even eating low carb, I allow myself to eat whatever veggies I want and a few fruits as well. I almost don't worry about it. I just stick to lots of veggies, and I try and stay with berries, maybe a couple cherries, half a small plum or half a small homegrown apple when I go for fruits. I'm not trying no-carbs. I avoid added sugar where possible and try and avoid the super sugary fruits. But if I indulge in an orange or banana, I'm not going to worry about it. But something like a Jamba Juice Smoothie - no way in hell I'm going to put that in my body.0 -
I would say the biggest downside would be missing out on awesomeness...I love a good baked potato...mashed sweet potatoes...my corn on the cob...don't get me started on beans and lentils...a kick *kitten* sandwich from my favorite deli...tacos...I could go on and on...
No, I don't log...yes, I lost 20 of my 40 Lbs without logging a dang thing and not doing keto or low carb or whatever...yes, I have maintained that loss for over 3 years. I always find this notion that if you do keto you just don't have to log but anything else you do, you absolutely have to log or you'll fail to be ridiculous...2 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »In my experience, people tend to eat less frequently on low carb diets which creates the deficit. When I was calorie counting as my primary focus it was a constant balancing act trying to free up calories at one meal so I could have calories to try and satisfy the constant need/compulsion to eat.
For example: This morning my breakfast was 625 calories. 302 of those calories were from added fat. Three eggs cooked in butter over 300ish grams of vegetables (broccoli, onions and garlic) that I sauteed in coconut oil. There would have been no way I could have afforded to "spend" that many calories on breakfast before low carb because I needed a large pool of calories available in order to eat throughout the day. It was a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul basically.
Eating low carb, I won't be hungry again until dinner which will be as much calories of meat, vegetables and fat as I could possibly want to eat at any one meal. Satisfying, high volume, high fat (i.e. calorie) meals less frequently is where a lot of low carbers end up naturally following their hunger cues.
I find it pretty easy to count calories. I plan my meals in advance, so I can see before the day begins exactly how it works out. Then I just eat like that.
I found it quite easy to overeat even when I had tried keto - particularly with cheese, which I can consume in almost limitless quantities. So if I were to do keto, I'd effectively be doing both keto and calorie counting anyway. I might as well just calorie count and be done with it.2 -
For me, it was easy to stay below my calories when i was doing low carb it was effortless. I cant say the same now that i'm eating moderate/normal carb, it takes a lot more juggling, editing and adding and taking away this and that in my diary to make everything fit. It's definitely more work now, and my hunger and cravings have returned and weight loss has become a battle once again
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 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
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions