low carb Does work!!!!
Replies
-
Why is this being treated as anything other than another mean people thread (tm)? It's yet another post aimed to stop people from giving advice, presented without the context of this mythical other thread, designed to do nothing more than shut down those of us trying to help. This should have been posted to the other thread instead of as a separate post berating everyone.24
-
diannethegeek wrote: »Why is this being treated as anything other than another mean people thread (tm)? It's yet another post aimed to stop people from giving advice, presented without the context of this mythical other thread, designed to do nothing more than shut down those of us trying to help. This should have been posted to the other thread instead of as a separate post berating everyone.
And it's not even Friday!0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »I did low carb for over a year and it worked as advertised. I lost the weight and wasn't hungry but ultimately I gained it all back and then some. The reason? Restrictive diets are boring to me and ultimately my cravings for (literally) forbidden fruits got to be too much. Low carb means saying goodbye to 85% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant. No thanks. Last night we had homemade strawberry shortcake with fresh strawberries. I adjusted my lunch and exercise to fit it in calorie wise. Pretty easy to do and IMO, life's too short to miss out on things like that.
Low carb means any kind of meat in the market, most veggies, many fruits, any full fat dairy product, dark chocolate, seeds and nuts of all kinds. Okay, 85% of the "junk food" in the grocery store is off limits, but I'd have a hard time fitting soda, chips, and candy into my calorie limits regardless. Dining out is easy - some kind of meat plus salad and veggies. It's as hard or as easy as you make it.
I regularly eat berries with heavy cream. I just skip the shortcake. Leaves room for more berries and more cream
.
This!!!!1 -
Really?seaandski14 wrote: »I think a major drawback of flour and flour-related products is that they are very calorically dense, so you get very little food in exchange for a tremendous amount of calories.
1 cup cooked spaghetti - 200 calories
2 tbsp butter - 200 calories
Which would be more filling?
Lmao.0 -
I was on a so called "low carb" diet and I have never been fatter. I think it really does depend on what works for you. I enjoy carbs such as potatoes, rice, beans and whole foods.4
-
In for what's wrong with high protein if no medical issues4
-
queenliz99 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Butter on pasta, now we're talking!
Add in a pasta sauce with chunky veggies and some cheese... I think I know what's for lunch!
Be right over!
You're bringing the wine, right?1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Butter on pasta, now we're talking!
Add in a pasta sauce with chunky veggies and some cheese... I think I know what's for lunch!
Be right over!
You're bringing the wine, right?
No that's me.4 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Butter on pasta, now we're talking!
And ketchup = comfort food.
My friend is Czech and she puts ketchup on everything. EVERYTHING!2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Butter on pasta, now we're talking!
Add in a pasta sauce with chunky veggies and some cheese... I think I know what's for lunch!
Be right over!
You're bringing the wine, right?
No that's me.
:laugh:
I better get some more groceries! @queenliz99 must be bringing the ice cream2 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »I did low carb for over a year and it worked as advertised. I lost the weight and wasn't hungry but ultimately I gained it all back and then some. The reason? Restrictive diets are boring to me and ultimately my cravings for (literally) forbidden fruits got to be too much. Low carb means saying goodbye to 85% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant. No thanks. Last night we had homemade strawberry shortcake with fresh strawberries. I adjusted my lunch and exercise to fit it in calorie wise. Pretty easy to do and IMO, life's too short to miss out on things like that.
Low carb means any kind of meat in the market, most veggies, many fruits, any full fat dairy product, dark chocolate, seeds and nuts of all kinds. Okay, 85% of the "junk food" in the grocery store is off limits, but I'd have a hard time fitting soda, chips, and candy into my calorie limits regardless. Dining out is easy - some kind of meat plus salad and veggies. It's as hard or as easy as you make it.
I regularly eat berries with heavy cream. I just skip the shortcake. Leaves room for more berries and more cream.
this sounds like lchf...not just low carb.
Not being snarky, but low carb is supposed to be high fat. When you reduce carbs (as a percentage) you obviously need to replace them with something else. Too much protein can have negative health consequences. So carbs get replaced with fats.
You don't sound snarky at all but you do sound coy
Jut trying to figure out why she's making a distinction between LC and LCHF. I genuinely don't understand. A LC diet that is also low in fat, is by default going to be high in protein, which is not good. LC should be high fat. Just waiting to see where Stef is going with this, lol.
I believe it stems from this comment........
You might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar ou might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar very little added fat..
Aahhh, I see where you are confused. Back in the 1970's a low calorie diet was either low fat or low carb. An elimination diet was the easiest way to count calories before the help of websites like this one. But most people today realize that lower calorie diet isn't ALWAYS low fat. This is old fashioned.
Some people need to choose to lower fat (reflux, gallbladder, etc). Fat is very filling for lots of folks, whether they eat carbs or not.
You changed 2 macros.......reduced carbs a great deal and added more fat. Was it your low fat diet that wasn't filling....or was it the high(er) carbs that triggered hunger?2 -
This content has been removed.
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »2 and a half weeks is not proof of anything
That's the land of motivation
Hope you keep it up for 2 and a half years ...or 2 and a half decades
Because that's when "it works" that's finding a "diet" and a way to live at your optimal weight / size
2 and a half weeks
This is true of any diet. Two weeks isn't much. It is hard for all diets to keep it going for years on end. LCHF, LFHC, vegetarian, moderation... all of them.
It is also true that LCHF can be done over the long term. Many have success with it. I'm at about 14 months in.
I don't know, I've been moderating for 3 years and I'm not finding it hard. It's all about finding the easiest way to cut calories for a person, and if that's low carb then great. For me it's moderate carbs and that's also great. Nothing special about any particular diet. This is like arguing which food tastes better. Many people love steak, but I find it revolting, there is no right answer outside of personal preference.
Exactly!
I find LCHF as the easiest woe ever. Trying to moderate did not work well for me. We need to find the diet that works best for our taste and our health. It's going to differ from person to person.
This is where low carbers get frustrated with the minority (not saying you) who respond to LCHF posts with: "Why?" or "You don't have to." or "It's not sustaniable." or "It's not healthy." For some of us, we do it because it works better, and we have to do it because other ways haven't worked, and we'll continue to do it for years and become healthier. Just like those who simply cut calories without any food substitutions.
I agree that it does come down to personal preference, but I would add that it also comes down to the health needs of your body.6 -
And by the way...I always eat something on my break cause I have a boring desk job and I'm a huge foodie and when I get to have a snack I look more forward to my breaks.. It's ten minutes so a handful of seeds or almonds does the trick... It's a mind thing isn't that why were all here??0
-
Nope, I'm here for the cat gifs.8
-
WinoGelato wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
Really?seaandski14 wrote: »I think a major drawback of flour and flour-related products is that they are very calorically dense, so you get very little food in exchange for a tremendous amount of calories.
1 cup cooked spaghetti - 200 calories
2 tbsp butter - 200 calories
Which would be more filling?
For me? The butter.
Just straight butter?
Didn't say it would be particularly appealing by itself (neither would plain pasta, tho), but yes. A couple Tbsps of butter would be more filling (and would keep me full longer) than a cup of pasta. May not be as much volume, but really neither is enough volume to "fill" me up. The butter would have a lot more staying power tho. With the pasta I'd be hangry two hours later.
0 -
domgibson88 wrote: »And by the way...I always eat something on my break cause I have a boring desk job and I'm a huge foodie and when I get to have a snack I look more forward to my breaks.. It's ten minutes so a handful of seeds or almonds does the trick... It's a mind thing isn't that why were all here??
Have you tried getting up and taking a lap around the building on those 10 minute breaks? If you truly aren't hungry and are eating out of boredom, I find that getting up and moving does more for me than eating a snack, no matter what the snack is.4 -
Well, I am Yugoslavian. That may explain my love of ketchup? LOL I do limit it, of course, because it's high in sugar and salt. *sigh*Alluminati wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Butter on pasta, now we're talking!
And ketchup = comfort food.
My friend is Czech and she puts ketchup on everything. EVERYTHING!
I cannot get enough ketchup packets if/when I get fries at a fast food joint. Holy hell. Never enough.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »And by the way...I always eat something on my break cause I have a boring desk job and I'm a huge foodie and when I get to have a snack I look more forward to my breaks.. It's ten minutes so a handful of seeds or almonds does the trick... It's a mind thing isn't that why were all here??
Have you tried getting up and taking a lap around the building on those 10 minute breaks? If you truly aren't hungry and are eating out of boredom, I find that getting up and moving does more for me than eating a snack, no matter what the snack is.
I bike to work everyday and get lots of excersise, I mountain bike once a week and have a personal trainer that I hired two weeks ago imagine that, that keeps me on my toes.3 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »So you ate less than you burned (CICO) while choosing foods that met your satiety needs?
I think her point (and I suspect you understand this, even if you want to play coy) is that for her, and many others, restricting carbs helps with satiety, making it easier to create a deficit without going hungry. I think she realizes that she ate less than she burned, she's just saying that LCHF made it easier for her to do that.
/end thread indeed.
But this is the thing you don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety, I went low carb 4 or 5 years ago and it was horrible...absolutely horrible...I never had that satisfied feeling....and by carbs I mean starches, I ate lots of veggies.
But after coming here and reading I realized it was okay to eat potatoes and white rice and pasta and I was so very happy
Even to this day I eat more protein and fats then carbs and I am "satisfied" and guess what lost weight and maintained....domgibson88 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »So, I'm sick of when people on here say they are struggling and someone on here suggests low carb and then another person berates them and says it's all about calories eat as much as you want but stay within the calories but heres the thing, did that and could not stay within my calories because carbs don't keep me satiated....they satisfy for an hour then I'm hungry again.. For example I used to have cheerios for breakfast but by first break at work (930) I was starving and usually grabbed a cookie or bag of chips...now I have 3 scrambled eggs with salsa (more calories) but I'm good till lunch!!I may have a small healthy snack like some Spitz or a handful of almonds but that's it!!!Now I'm not saying this works for everyone but I've lost 6 pounds in 2 and a half weeks doing this, it's working for me...so when someone on here suggests low care it is a VALID suggestion...the whole "eat whatever you want and stay within calorie goal" is not the ultimate answer so don't be quick to judge someone's suggestion.. Different lifestyles work for different people.
I bolded what was the actual problem for you. How about grabbing something low calorie instead of cookies and chips?
BTW. cookies and chips? Loooooots of fat.
What I've said on here many times when I get to The point where I'm starving I have no self control and go for unhealthy stuff, eating a low carb high fat meal allows me to not feel that way and I can get away with a handful of almonds or a healthy snack till I get to lunch cause at break, I am still satiated from breakfast.....
but you didn't have to go low carb for that all you had to do was plan ahead for what you knew was coming and pack yogurt, fruit, veggies etc to snack on...
You might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar very little added fat. Cutting back on obvious "junk" (soda, chips, cookies, etc) helped, but not enough. I still struggled with hunger much of the time. When I dropped the grains and sugary fruit (keeping low sugar and savory fruit), started favoring fibrous veggies rather than starchy ones, switched to fattier cuts of meat and whole eggs, switched to full fat dairy, and increased the added fat (good fats like butter, lard, and bacon drippings), my hunger diminished in a big way. I was able to make more rational decisions and trust my hunger signals. Yes, I was obviously in a calorie deficit, so I lost weight. But for the first time in my life I was able to easily stick to that deficit long enough. I wasn't fighting hunger all the time. You may do well on a higher carb diet. Not everyone does.
Yogurt (at least the low fat kind, full fat regular or Greek yogurt is okay for me, in small doses), fruit, starchy veggies, grains (even "whole" grains)... These fuel my hunger. I'd eat those, find myself still starving, and reach for more.
did you miss the part where I said I eat more fats and protein but don't feel that going low carb is the end all to be all...it does help with weight loss esp at first but you can up protein and fats without sacrificing carbs to a degree that you are "restricting"
I eat lots of meat, eggs, cheese, butter, cook with lard and bacon fat...
I guess I missed the part where I, or the OP, said that low carb was the end all be all. I did see where you said "you don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety". Had you said "*I* don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety" I would have agreed with you. Plenty of people don't have to restrict carbs. I'm just not one of them. Not that low carb is the only way, or even the best way for all, just that it is the best way for me. And, for what it's worth, while many might find my diet "restrictive" I've never felt freer or more in control of my eating habits. Since I'm not hungry al, the time, I am free to indulge in true moderation without fear that that one little slice of cake will end up being half a cake before the night is over. I couldn't trust myself before. Now I can. To me, that's liberating, not restricting.
" It just upsets me that some people on here think they're way is the absolute answer and it's not." from the OP and there is an absolute answer CI<CO.....going low carb doesn't guarantee weight loss.
not all of themtlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »I did low carb for over a year and it worked as advertised. I lost the weight and wasn't hungry but ultimately I gained it all back and then some. The reason? Restrictive diets are boring to me and ultimately my cravings for (literally) forbidden fruits got to be too much. Low carb means saying goodbye to 85% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant. No thanks. Last night we had homemade strawberry shortcake with fresh strawberries. I adjusted my lunch and exercise to fit it in calorie wise. Pretty easy to do and IMO, life's too short to miss out on things like that.
Low carb means any kind of meat in the market, most veggies, many fruits, any full fat dairy product, dark chocolate, seeds and nuts of all kinds. Okay, 85% of the "junk food" in the grocery store is off limits, but I'd have a hard time fitting soda, chips, and candy into my calorie limits regardless. Dining out is easy - some kind of meat plus salad and veggies. It's as hard or as easy as you make it.
I regularly eat berries with heavy cream. I just skip the shortcake. Leaves room for more berries and more cream.
this sounds like lchf...not just low carb.
Not being snarky, but low carb is supposed to be high fat. When you reduce carbs (as a percentage) you obviously need to replace them with something else. Too much protein can have negative health consequences. So carbs get replaced with fats.
Yes... to lose weight CI<CO. I don't think anyone is disputing that. For some (not all, and I think I and the OP have acknowledged this) LC makes reducing CI much, much easier. CICO is not a method. It is a mathematical idea. Whether you create CI<CO by going low carb, by going vegan, by weighing and measuring and counting, etc, yes, you still need to create a deficit to lose weight. There is more than one way to create that deficit.
Which LC diets that are not high fat are you referring to?1 -
-
domgibson88 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »And by the way...I always eat something on my break cause I have a boring desk job and I'm a huge foodie and when I get to have a snack I look more forward to my breaks.. It's ten minutes so a handful of seeds or almonds does the trick... It's a mind thing isn't that why were all here??
Have you tried getting up and taking a lap around the building on those 10 minute breaks? If you truly aren't hungry and are eating out of boredom, I find that getting up and moving does more for me than eating a snack, no matter what the snack is.
I bike to work everyday and get lots of excersise, I mountain bike once a week and have a personal trainer that I hired two weeks ago imagine that, that keeps me on my toes.
Why have you replied to this with snark? Offering advice about a minor behavioural change isn't suggesting you're lazy. It's a distraction technique, a genuine method to break behavioural habits, like snacking when not hungry.
Also still in to find out what this other thread is where low carb was totally denounced by the "mean people".7 -
domgibson88 wrote: »And by the way...I always eat something on my break cause I have a boring desk job and I'm a huge foodie and when I get to have a snack I look more forward to my breaks.. It's ten minutes so a handful of seeds or almonds does the trick... It's a mind thing isn't that why were all here??
This makes me kind of jealous... I really love nuts but a handful of almonds feels very unsatisfying to me. That's why I only have them as a part of food now, like nut stuffed dates or to top oatmeal, or bank calories for them and have at least two big handfuls. Eating a handful of nuts feels like eating one chip and expecting to be happy. In fact, I can happily eat one chip but never a handful of nuts.6 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »I did low carb for over a year and it worked as advertised. I lost the weight and wasn't hungry but ultimately I gained it all back and then some. The reason? Restrictive diets are boring to me and ultimately my cravings for (literally) forbidden fruits got to be too much. Low carb means saying goodbye to 85% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant. No thanks. Last night we had homemade strawberry shortcake with fresh strawberries. I adjusted my lunch and exercise to fit it in calorie wise. Pretty easy to do and IMO, life's too short to miss out on things like that.
Low carb means any kind of meat in the market, most veggies, many fruits, any full fat dairy product, dark chocolate, seeds and nuts of all kinds. Okay, 85% of the "junk food" in the grocery store is off limits, but I'd have a hard time fitting soda, chips, and candy into my calorie limits regardless. Dining out is easy - some kind of meat plus salad and veggies. It's as hard or as easy as you make it.
I regularly eat berries with heavy cream. I just skip the shortcake. Leaves room for more berries and more cream.
this sounds like lchf...not just low carb.
Not being snarky, but low carb is supposed to be high fat. When you reduce carbs (as a percentage) you obviously need to replace them with something else. Too much protein can have negative health consequences. So carbs get replaced with fats.
You don't sound snarky at all but you do sound coy
Jut trying to figure out why she's making a distinction between LC and LCHF. I genuinely don't understand. A LC diet that is also low in fat, is by default going to be high in protein, which is not good. LC should be high fat. Just waiting to see where Stef is going with this, lol.
I believe it stems from this comment........
You might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar ou might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar very little added fat..
Aahhh, I see where you are confused. Back in the 1970's a low calorie diet was either low fat or low carb. An elimination diet was the easiest way to count calories before the help of websites like this one. But most people today realize that lower calorie diet isn't ALWAYS low fat. This is old fashioned.
Some people need to choose to lower fat (reflux, gallbladder, etc). Fat is very filling for lots of folks, whether they eat carbs or not.
You changed 2 macros.......reduced carbs a great deal and added more fat. Was it your low fat diet that wasn't filling....or was it the high(er) carbs that triggered hunger?
I said low fat or fat free *dairy*. My diet previously was between 20-30% fat. Not super low fat by any stretch. I know that if and when I go over 100g of carbs in a day, I start feeling that vague hunger and the cravings come back. This is while keeping fat still over 50% of my diet. So, no I wasn't on a "low fat" diet, just lowER fat, and yeah, even getting ample fat, carbs cause me hunger. Don't know why that might be, but I am glad to have figured it out. It may or may not be the case for any other given person.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »So you ate less than you burned (CICO) while choosing foods that met your satiety needs?
I think her point (and I suspect you understand this, even if you want to play coy) is that for her, and many others, restricting carbs helps with satiety, making it easier to create a deficit without going hungry. I think she realizes that she ate less than she burned, she's just saying that LCHF made it easier for her to do that.
/end thread indeed.
But this is the thing you don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety, I went low carb 4 or 5 years ago and it was horrible...absolutely horrible...I never had that satisfied feeling....and by carbs I mean starches, I ate lots of veggies.
But after coming here and reading I realized it was okay to eat potatoes and white rice and pasta and I was so very happy
Even to this day I eat more protein and fats then carbs and I am "satisfied" and guess what lost weight and maintained....domgibson88 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »So, I'm sick of when people on here say they are struggling and someone on here suggests low carb and then another person berates them and says it's all about calories eat as much as you want but stay within the calories but heres the thing, did that and could not stay within my calories because carbs don't keep me satiated....they satisfy for an hour then I'm hungry again.. For example I used to have cheerios for breakfast but by first break at work (930) I was starving and usually grabbed a cookie or bag of chips...now I have 3 scrambled eggs with salsa (more calories) but I'm good till lunch!!I may have a small healthy snack like some Spitz or a handful of almonds but that's it!!!Now I'm not saying this works for everyone but I've lost 6 pounds in 2 and a half weeks doing this, it's working for me...so when someone on here suggests low care it is a VALID suggestion...the whole "eat whatever you want and stay within calorie goal" is not the ultimate answer so don't be quick to judge someone's suggestion.. Different lifestyles work for different people.
I bolded what was the actual problem for you. How about grabbing something low calorie instead of cookies and chips?
BTW. cookies and chips? Loooooots of fat.
What I've said on here many times when I get to The point where I'm starving I have no self control and go for unhealthy stuff, eating a low carb high fat meal allows me to not feel that way and I can get away with a handful of almonds or a healthy snack till I get to lunch cause at break, I am still satiated from breakfast.....
but you didn't have to go low carb for that all you had to do was plan ahead for what you knew was coming and pack yogurt, fruit, veggies etc to snack on...
You might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar very little added fat. Cutting back on obvious "junk" (soda, chips, cookies, etc) helped, but not enough. I still struggled with hunger much of the time. When I dropped the grains and sugary fruit (keeping low sugar and savory fruit), started favoring fibrous veggies rather than starchy ones, switched to fattier cuts of meat and whole eggs, switched to full fat dairy, and increased the added fat (good fats like butter, lard, and bacon drippings), my hunger diminished in a big way. I was able to make more rational decisions and trust my hunger signals. Yes, I was obviously in a calorie deficit, so I lost weight. But for the first time in my life I was able to easily stick to that deficit long enough. I wasn't fighting hunger all the time. You may do well on a higher carb diet. Not everyone does.
Yogurt (at least the low fat kind, full fat regular or Greek yogurt is okay for me, in small doses), fruit, starchy veggies, grains (even "whole" grains)... These fuel my hunger. I'd eat those, find myself still starving, and reach for more.
did you miss the part where I said I eat more fats and protein but don't feel that going low carb is the end all to be all...it does help with weight loss esp at first but you can up protein and fats without sacrificing carbs to a degree that you are "restricting"
I eat lots of meat, eggs, cheese, butter, cook with lard and bacon fat...
I guess I missed the part where I, or the OP, said that low carb was the end all be all. I did see where you said "you don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety". Had you said "*I* don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety" I would have agreed with you. Plenty of people don't have to restrict carbs. I'm just not one of them. Not that low carb is the only way, or even the best way for all, just that it is the best way for me. And, for what it's worth, while many might find my diet "restrictive" I've never felt freer or more in control of my eating habits. Since I'm not hungry al, the time, I am free to indulge in true moderation without fear that that one little slice of cake will end up being half a cake before the night is over. I couldn't trust myself before. Now I can. To me, that's liberating, not restricting.
" It just upsets me that some people on here think they're way is the absolute answer and it's not." from the OP and there is an absolute answer CI<CO.....going low carb doesn't guarantee weight loss.
not all of themtlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »peter56765 wrote: »I did low carb for over a year and it worked as advertised. I lost the weight and wasn't hungry but ultimately I gained it all back and then some. The reason? Restrictive diets are boring to me and ultimately my cravings for (literally) forbidden fruits got to be too much. Low carb means saying goodbye to 85% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant. No thanks. Last night we had homemade strawberry shortcake with fresh strawberries. I adjusted my lunch and exercise to fit it in calorie wise. Pretty easy to do and IMO, life's too short to miss out on things like that.
Low carb means any kind of meat in the market, most veggies, many fruits, any full fat dairy product, dark chocolate, seeds and nuts of all kinds. Okay, 85% of the "junk food" in the grocery store is off limits, but I'd have a hard time fitting soda, chips, and candy into my calorie limits regardless. Dining out is easy - some kind of meat plus salad and veggies. It's as hard or as easy as you make it.
I regularly eat berries with heavy cream. I just skip the shortcake. Leaves room for more berries and more cream.
this sounds like lchf...not just low carb.
Not being snarky, but low carb is supposed to be high fat. When you reduce carbs (as a percentage) you obviously need to replace them with something else. Too much protein can have negative health consequences. So carbs get replaced with fats.
Yes... to lose weight CI<CO. I don't think anyone is disputing that. For some (not all, and I think I and the OP have acknowledged this) LC makes reducing CI much, much easier. CICO is not a method. It is a mathematical idea. Whether you create CI<CO by going low carb, by going vegan, by weighing and measuring and counting, etc, yes, you still need to create a deficit to lose weight. There is more than one way to create that deficit.
Which LC diets that are not high fat are you referring to?
I agree that the way of creating the deficit is largely up to the individual to determine what will work best for them.
Couldn't a person be LC and High Protein? I'm not saying it is advisable or that there is a common approach, I'm just assuming that with three macros to play with, if you reduce one, you could increase either of the other two, right?
0 -
8
-
domgibson88 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »And by the way...I always eat something on my break cause I have a boring desk job and I'm a huge foodie and when I get to have a snack I look more forward to my breaks.. It's ten minutes so a handful of seeds or almonds does the trick... It's a mind thing isn't that why were all here??
Have you tried getting up and taking a lap around the building on those 10 minute breaks? If you truly aren't hungry and are eating out of boredom, I find that getting up and moving does more for me than eating a snack, no matter what the snack is.
I bike to work everyday and get lots of excersise, I mountain bike once a week and have a personal trainer that I hired two weeks ago imagine that, that keeps me on my toes.
Okay...
I wasn't suggesting you aren't exercising in other ways. It was a simple question, something that I have found useful for myself.
As much as I love sarcasm, I don't think it is particularly warranted here.2 -
7
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Couldn't a person be LC and High Protein? I'm not saying it is advisable or that there is a common approach, I'm just assuming that with three macros to play with, if you reduce one, you could increase either of the other two, right?
Yes! I fluctuate my carbs and proteins far more than fat. I like to keep my fat intake no more than 20%, preferably much less, and I'm ok with increasing protein (more common) or carbs to keep fat intake in check.
It means I get to eat more!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions