Calories in/Calories out vs. low carb
Replies
-
260 to 211 currently eating in moderation. About 10 pounds more to go.2
-
katandwaves wrote: »Everyone around me tells me that ultra low carb is the way to go. I'd love to hear success stories of people who counted calories - enjoying the foods you love in moderation. I need to get past this mindset that I'm doing it wrong and won't see results if I eat cereal, sandwiches, etc.
Thanks!
Katrina
For weight loss calories matter.
Low carb is a preference, not a necessity. Sustainability of diet is more important than type of diet.
I have lost over 20 lbs eating the food I always ate in appropriate portion sizes. Very painless and sustainable.3 -
Echoing the statements above, I think moderation works best for most people, assuming you are accurately counting calories (CICO). For me, I think the food scale was the big turning point. I never had a lot of weight to lose (I was 157lbs as a 5'7" female, targeting 140-145), but I went at it pretty aggressively, trying to eat 1200 cals or less. I kept stalling and couldn't figure out why... turns out i'm a horrible estimator. My weight loss has been much more steady since I bought that scale.
Having said all of that, I started doing low carb because I found it was hard to eat carbs and stay full at 1200 calories. I continued because, through process of elimination, I discovered that the stomachaches and non-migraine headaches I had been suffering seemed to be linked to these foods. High sugar anything (candy, cake, cookies and fruits especially) would give me headaches, pastas, breads, even potatoes and corn products were giving me stomachaches. I feel better eating like this, but I recognize its not for everyone. I'm also lactose intolerant, so I pretty much live on lean veg and meat, again, definitely a diet most people probably couldn't tolerate for long periods of time, but for me the stomach issues ultimately just weren't worth it.
I do toy with my macros a LOT. I'm currently eating 1400 cals with a higher carb % than usual. We just finished up Hell Week at Orangetheory and my body was screaming for the extra fuel. However, I had my 3 week transformation challenge weigh in and although my weight had dropped 2lbs (yay!) my body fat % is actually up almost 2% (boo!). Next week starts another hard cut- 2 weeks of LOTS of protein and veggies, cutting back on the fats, and almost no carbs. Its short lived and then I'll go back to a more balanced diet.1 -
I am doing lower carb breakfast & lunches now and eating more normally w/ my family (reasonable portions and trying to pile on the veggies). This works great, isn't terribly extreme and keeps me satisfied so I actually am taking less in.0
-
I do low carb because nothing else worked for me. I could cut calories and maybe lose a lb or two but I was hungry ALL the time. When I switched to low carb almost 2 months ago I found I wasn't hungry often. I eat between 1000-1200 calories a day but sometimes I have days where I eat 1500 calories a day. A lot of icky feelings I used to get have gone away. It's not for everyone but it does work for a lot of people. You have to find what works for you and what you will be able to sustain even after you lose the weight.4
-
Both. You need to consume less calories then you use. That's the cardinal principle of of weight loss.
The advantage of low carb lies in the fact that fats and proteins tend to take longer to digest. They "stick to your ribs" as is were, so you don't get hungry as soon. It's the same principle as the low glycemic index diets. The lower the glycemic index (GI), the longer it takes to digest. So, you can go longer between meals. Also, low GI foods don't spike your blood sugar level, so there's no surge and crash in your energy level. There's some other material about fat storage and usage, but I can't recall it at this time.0 -
I've done both lchf and calorie counted and lost weight with both and, for me, they both have pros and cons. I liked doing lchf because I felt like i could eat a lot and if i wanted to snack late at night there were a lot of no/low carb options that I could eat so I never felt I was denied anything and I also felt I ate more healthily on this diet. However I found it more expensive as, I was buying a lot more fresh produce, and time consuming as I was cooking meals from scratch. For cico I don't feel I can eat as much as I would like to and never feel full and my current diet is rubbish as I eat anything as long as it's within my calorie limit. On the plus side I find it's cheaper as most things are now convenience foods and I'm not cooking from scratch. I know other people can manage a cico diet way better than me but it's something I've never been very good at
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I can do some serious damage to cold cereal and milk. But it's the combination. I was never one for eating it straight out of the box.
But I've also overeaten (to ridiculous extremes) egg salad and cheese.
Having been an emotional eater, it really was all about putting away a vast quantity of food, no matter what I was eating. That's why I don't really get the "the macros made me do it" arguments. My overeating was always behavior based.
I've never been an overeater or an emotional eater-- don't like feeling "full". I gradually gained a few pounds over time. I tend to plateau and maintain easily. I think my gain was age related and due to slowing metabolism over time. I was never overweight when younger and not too overweight at max weight. But I have trouble losing weight and don't understand how others can lose so easily but can gain back easily. I don't lose weight easily and do stall easily.
Well, I used to think those same things about myself -- that I had a slowed metabolism due to age and that I lost weight slowly.
That's not true.
You said you were using Nutri-System to lose weight. Were you logging and tracking at the time? Were you using a food scale? If you weren't you don't truly know your caloric intake.
At the time I thought I was having a hard time losing weight, I was estimating my food intake by eyeballing portions. When I starting actually logging and weighing everything, it was a real eye opener. I also started losing weight at pretty much the expected rate.
The truth is that age accounts for a very small decrease in metabolic rate, about 100 calories per decade.
I've said before that the way you speak about metabolism indicates that you misunderstand it. I stand by that.
Yes I was weighing. I went too low. Metabolism can slow down if you restrict too low too long.
I stand by that.
Not in the way you think, and in the time it takes to lose 10 pounds? You barely scratched the surface.
I'm surprised you were weighing food if you weren't on MFP yet and using Nutri System. Where were you logging food?
Yes. Nutrisystem has logs to fill out. I actually bought the scale to use while on NS and was active on the NS Boards. They also have counselors that you can call.
What kind of log? What kind of means were you using to get data to record your entries?0 -
Age, genetics and dieting affect rmr (resting metabolic rate)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
RMR doesn't matter for weight loss. TDEE is where it's at.
Also, dieting will of course decrease your RMR because you become a smaller person. Just like a smaller house uses less oil to heat, a smaller person has a lower RMR to function.
You really don't understand what you're talking about.
You did not damage your metabolism by losing 10 pounds or by eating a 1200 calorie diet. You were eating more than you thought.
You also have not packed on any appreciable muscle in the short time you've been lifting (are you lifting, the last I knew, you claimed to recomp through Zumba, which is impossible)... certainly not enough to affect your RMR. That is something that takes about a year or so of heavy lifting.
Frankly, what you're saying just doesn't add up.4 -
Everyone is different, but for the last 16 months I've lost 116 lbs eating around 50% of my calories in carb heavy foods like veggies and whole grains, including breads, potatoes, beans and such. 30% or so lean proteins including chicken, egg whites and fish, and 20% fat. I have occasional sugary treats if I really want them, and eat out a few times a month. I have tried to do this thing aiming for the long term, and I wouldn't last a week on super low carb. My bloodwork this week was phenomenal.4
-
40lbs and counting with calorie deficit. 5-10lbs to go...gonna keep doing what's working!
I do try to stay under my carb goal and meet/exceed my protein goal. Just a personal preference that makes my body feel better.0 -
MotherOfSharpei wrote: »40lbs and counting with calorie deficit. 5-10lbs to go...gonna keep doing what's working!
I do try to stay under my carb goal and meet/exceed my protein goal. Just a personal preference that makes my body feel better.
How long has this taken your @MotherOfSharpei0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age, genetics and dieting affect rmr (resting metabolic rate)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
RMR doesn't matter for weight loss. TDEE is where it's at.
Also, dieting will of course decrease your RMR because you become a smaller person. Just like a smaller house uses less oil to heat, a smaller person has a lower RMR to function.
Um, TDEE is a function of RMR. Lower RMR=Lower TDEE, for the same amount of other activity.
Dieting does not just reduce RMR because you become smaller. There is an additional penalty.
Google-Scholaring "Reduced Obese" will get some discussions of this.2 -
the_new_mark_2016 wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »40lbs and counting with calorie deficit. 5-10lbs to go...gonna keep doing what's working!
I do try to stay under my carb goal and meet/exceed my protein goal. Just a personal preference that makes my body feel better.
How long has this taken your @MotherOfSharpei
@the_new_mark_2016 It's taken roughly 6.5 months to lose the 40lbs.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age, genetics and dieting affect rmr (resting metabolic rate)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
RMR doesn't matter for weight loss. TDEE is where it's at.
Also, dieting will of course decrease your RMR because you become a smaller person. Just like a smaller house uses less oil to heat, a smaller person has a lower RMR to function.
Um, TDEE is a function of RMR. Lower RMR=Lower TDEE, for the same amount of other activity.
Dieting does not just reduce RMR because you become smaller. There is an additional penalty.
Google-Scholaring "Reduced Obese" will get some discussions of this.
You presume that you can't raise your TDEE by being more active and took this out of context.
Also, those studies were mostly done on people who'd undergone severe calorie restriction on VLCD's that did not protect against muscle loss. (I've researched this all before.)
So this brings us back to TDEE. There will still be a small affect on the RMR of dieters, but it's easy enough to counter. The biggest observed effects of metabolic adaptation were found to be related to a decrease in NEAT. Most people can counter this by either getting some kind of tracker that gives movement reminders or setting a timer to move every hour.
Honestly, the stories of people on this forum who maintain weight on expected or more calories give lie to the myth of drastically lowered metabolic rates.
5 -
Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/0 -
Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?4 -
My new quote I read today is from Sheryl Sandburg about how she feels about feedback... she chooses applicants who take feedback well because those are the ones that will learn things and grow.1
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 calories.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.4 -
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/lean-body-mass-maintenance-and-metabolic-rate-slowdown-qa.html/Studies have repeatedly shown that individuals who have been dieted down to a given weight will have a lower than predicted metabolic rate compared to someone who didn’t diet to that weight. That is, someone who ‘naturally’ weighs 200 pounds will have a higher total energy expenditure than someone who dieted down to 200 pounds.
So what’s causing this reduction in total energy expenditure. A majority of the ‘metabolic slowdown’ that occurs is due simply to the loss of body mass. Because larger bodies burn more calories (both at rest and during activities) and smaller bodies burn less.
But that’s not the only cause of metabolic slowdown here. There is also an adaptive component of metabolic rate slowdown that is mediated by changes in hormones: leptin, insulin, thyroid, catecholamines. As these change (decrease) on a diet, you find that tissues burn fewer calories per unit mass. I’d mention that not all studies find this, about half do and half don’t. That is, your assumption that a given body composition always burns the identical number of calories on a day to day basis isn’t entirely correct.
Of course, an important question is how much of a change this amounts to. During active weight loss, the impact is relatively greater (because hormones tend to be more greatly affected); at weight maintenance (once a person has stabilized), the impact isn’t huge. In some studies of the post-obese (folks who have been dieted down and maintained at that weight) show a relatively modest 5% or so reduction in RMR. The effect exists but is not massive; it’s also highly variable, with people showing relatively more or less of an effect.
There is also evidence that individuals move around less when they lose/are losing weight. As James Krieger recently wrote on his Weightology.net website, it looks like changes in activity (especially NEAT) are the far larger contribution to the reduction in overall energy expenditure on a day to day basis; the number of calories burned in that activity also appear to be reduced due to improved muscular efficiency.
In that study, decreases in RMR were about 150 calories per day but reductions in activity expenditure were up in the 300 calorie plus range with the total effect being over 400 calories. This is likely why daily activity has such a profound impact on weight maintenance as I discussed in Exercise and Weight/Fat Loss Part 2: since the body is ‘automatically’ decreasing activity energy expenditure, you have to make up for it.3 -
I do a relative low carb cuz of my pre-diabetes. If I eat tons of low carb foods past my calorie intake I will gain. If I want a sandwich I eat a sandwich as long as I have the calories for it. Low carb vs CICO is not two different types of eating for weight loss.0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 caloriesno.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.
Yes. I did. I plateaued. And I wasn't well. And my body slowed way down. I am still a very, very slow loser. I haven't had my thyroid checked, but I may go just to rule that possibility out.
I wasn't willing to drop down more than 1200 so I unhappily stayed at that number thinking it was my plight.
I later learned about TDEE and that my maintenance calories should be around 1800, so I gradually reversed dieted after researching. Now when I diet next I only plan to dip down to 1500 calories or so. I never plan to go that low (ETA 1200 ) ever again.
Others have TDEEs that are different based on age, sex, height, genetics, health, activity levels or whatever. I'm sorry you don't believe me or agree with me. That isn't something I can ever prove to your satisfaction if it never has happened to you. It happened to me in my 50s. I have no reason to lie about this.
I get no benefit from sharing other than knowing that there are others it has happened to out there. They report it plenty, but people accuse them of lying or not weighing food with kitchen scales or not logging properly. But I tend to believe that many are experienced dieters who have been doing this a while who plateau even on a diet.3 -
CICO applies to everyone irregardless of type of diet. Calories in are how many calories you eat and calories out are how many calories you expend. How many calories an individual needs varies depending on factors such as their activity level, age, height, etc.
0 -
Everyone is different, but for the last 16 months I've lost 116 lbs eating around 50% of my calories in carb heavy foods like veggies and whole grains, including breads, potatoes, beans and such. 30% or so lean proteins including chicken, egg whites and fish, and 20% fat. I have occasional sugary treats if I really want them, and eat out a few times a month. I have tried to do this thing aiming for the long term, and I wouldn't last a week on super low carb. My bloodwork this week was phenomenal.
@NancyYale this is awesome
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 caloriesno.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.
Yes. I did. I plateaued. And I wasn't well. And my body slowed way down. I am still a very, very slow loser. I haven't had my thyroid checked, but I may go just to rule that possibility out.
I wasn't willing to drop down more than 1200 so I unhappily stayed at that number thinking it was my plight.
I later learned about TDEE and that my maintenance calories should be around 1800, so I gradually reversed dieted after researching. Now when I diet next I only plan to dip down to 1500 calories or so. I never plan to go that low (ETA 1200 ) ever again.
Others have TDEEs that are different based on age, sex, height, genetics, health, activity levels or whatever. I'm sorry you don't believe me or agree with me. That isn't something I can ever prove to your satisfaction if it never has happened to you. It happened to me in my 50s. I have no reason to lie about this.
I get no benefit from sharing other than knowing that there are others it has happened to out there. They report it plenty, but people accuse them of lying or not weighing food with kitchen scales or not logging properly. But I tend to believe that many are experienced dieters who have been doing this a while who plateau even on a diet.
Three words. Concentration camp survivors.
Three more words: Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
These people continued to lose weight in the face of continuing caloric restriction.
The body does not work in the way you believe it works, Deb. You were eating more than you thought. There were either times you were binging or sneaking bites of food here or there, or you were eating extra food.
I'm sorry, you were not maintaining on 1200 calories.
That is a caloric intake for a very short much older sedentary woman.
No, I don't believe you. Not in the least. I've seen you flit from fad to fad on these boards, latching onto whatever you read to easily. Now you're into low carb. The last big thing you were into was recomp. What's going to be next?5 -
I am trying the low carb keto eating plan, but I also plan to count my calories.......because to me that just makes sense.0
-
I'm doing Low Carb, Medium Protein, High Fat - which is basically Keto Clarity if you want to read the book. I've been following this about a month and am down 12 lbs (weigh in is tomorrow). I no longer get hungry and rarely get food cravings. I've found ways to substitute things like bread, pasta, etc. My carb count is 20g per day. Protein recommendation is 2.2g per kg of weight. Fat needs to be higher than your protein. Fat is what keeps you from being hungry.
It changes your body from sugar burning to fat burning once you get into ketosis, which only takes a few days. NUTRITIONAL Ketosis. You have to monitor your protein as well. Too much protein can lead to gains as it releases hormones that will kick you back into sugar burning rather than fat burning.
Everyone has their own plan that works for them. The trick is finding that whether it's vegan, paleo, low carb, etc. Calories matter for all of them I think. More calories in than needed and you gain.
I always find it fascinating that those who follow LCHF bring up this point quite often because it's almost meaningless; more dietary fat = greater fat oxidation (but that is dietary fat, not body fat necessarily), more carbs = greater carbohydrate oxidation. But in the end, it doesn't really matter since the body utilizes both effectively and the net energy balance is the only thing that matter for weight/fat maintenance. Just an observation. It's not wrong and not meant as a criticism or anything, just something that makes me giggle a little. Sorry for the tangent.
OP, I lost 50 lbs trying several different methods; paleo, IF, flexible/IIFYM. What I have discovered is restriction, of any sort (timing or foods) does not work for me. But like others, I concentrate on increasing whole foods, particularly those higher in protein and fiber, and have worked through a lot of food combinations to figure out what works best. For me, lean protein + starches/ fiber is the ideal combo. When I am cutting, I limit dietary fat as it has no impact on satiety. When I maintain or bulk, I add in fats.
So it's best to play around with things for a few months, documenting how you feel and making adjustments as necessary to ensure dietary compliance. Another big factor is are you the type that likes flexibility or strict rules. If you are the latter, a diet that has rules might be beneficial; if you are the former (like me) than you will do better with a flexible type diet. In the end, no diet will work without compliance.
I would also suggest making goals outside of weight loss as it can be an additional motivator and help deter you from making aggressive diet mistakes just by focusing on weight. For me, I focus on body fat and strength. The latter is my primary goal. It just so happens that it helps me achieve a good body fat when combined with a diet that allows me to be in a deficit.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 caloriesno.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.
Yes. I did. I plateaued. And I wasn't well. And my body slowed way down. I am still a very, very slow loser. I haven't had my thyroid checked, but I may go just to rule that possibility out.
I wasn't willing to drop down more than 1200 so I unhappily stayed at that number thinking it was my plight.
I later learned about TDEE and that my maintenance calories should be around 1800, so I gradually reversed dieted after researching. Now when I diet next I only plan to dip down to 1500 calories or so. I never plan to go that low (ETA 1200 ) ever again.
Others have TDEEs that are different based on age, sex, height, genetics, health, activity levels or whatever. I'm sorry you don't believe me or agree with me. That isn't something I can ever prove to your satisfaction if it never has happened to you. It happened to me in my 50s. I have no reason to lie about this.
I get no benefit from sharing other than knowing that there are others it has happened to out there. They report it plenty, but people accuse them of lying or not weighing food with kitchen scales or not logging properly. But I tend to believe that many are experienced dieters who have been doing this a while who plateau even on a diet.
Three words. Concentration camp survivors.
Three more words: Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
These people continued to lose weight in the face of continuing caloric restriction.
The body does not work in the way you believe it works, Deb. You were eating more than you thought. There were either times you were binging or sneaking bites of food here or there, or you were eating extra food.
I'm sorry, you were not maintaining on 1200 calories.
That is a caloric intake for a very short much older sedentary woman.
No, I don't believe you. Not in the least. I've seen you flit from fad to fad on these boards, latching onto whatever you read to easily. Now you're into low carb. The last big thing you were into was recomp. What's going to be next?
First of all I was never on a starvation diet. Nor have I ever said that. What I said is that I plateaued at 1200 and was not willing to go lower because I had heard that one needs to get doctor supervision to go lower. Plus health is my number one concern. I had read that 1200 is suitable to get enough healthy nutrients.
I love recomp! I learned about that on rhe recomp thread. Then I researched how to do it. That is what I do when I maintain. That is something that I don't plan to give up. I'm thankful for that.
Keto worked for me and I plan to do it for future brief cuts. I researched this also so I wouldn't lose electrolytes and could minimize the side effects of getting keto adapted. I could only stay on it a month (mid-July to mid-August. It definitely helped satiate me and benefited me.) But I had difficulty getting into ketosis.
I am still doing IF and love it! I am still eating LCHF lunch and a 40/30/30 dinner. So it wasn't so much "flitting"--- in six months time I tried a variety of options. Low carb has a some flexibility, and I'm currently trying to discover the carb level I tolerate the best.
2 -
Oh and I'm not a binger. I hate feeling full so nice try. Not true0
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
- 427 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