Calories in/Calories out vs. low carb
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »LCHF isn't a "fad" either. It is a way of eating.
It's both...it's currently the hot new trendy thing within the diet and fitness community at the moment...just pick up that fitness magazine in the checkout line...pretty soon it will be something else...that makes it a fad. If it weren't a fad you wouldn't get posts like the OP..."I heard I need to go ultra low carb..." She heard that because it is currently a fad and carbs are "bad"...
Don't forget to do HIIT while you're LCHF'ing. Gotta combine the latest fads for max effectiveness!
I would literally die if I tried that. Anaerobic + low carb = painful death, lol.
Honest question - I do HIIT 3x per week and I also eat LCHF (not super low, 50-80g per day, been eating that way for three years ago). Am I supposed to be dead? I don't do super long sessions (15-20 min). I've never tried eating a high carb meal before hand.... Is there a problem with HIIT and LC? I find it challenging, but not impossible... Genuinely curious here!
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »LCHF isn't a "fad" either. It is a way of eating.
It's both...it's currently the hot new trendy thing within the diet and fitness community at the moment...just pick up that fitness magazine in the checkout line...pretty soon it will be something else...that makes it a fad. If it weren't a fad you wouldn't get posts like the OP..."I heard I need to go ultra low carb..." She heard that because it is currently a fad and carbs are "bad"...
Don't forget to do HIIT while you're LCHF'ing. Gotta combine the latest fads for max effectiveness!
I would literally die if I tried that. Anaerobic + low carb = painful death, lol.
Honest question - I do HIIT 3x per week and I also eat LCHF (not super low, 50-80g per day, been eating that way for three years ago). Am I supposed to be dead? I don't do super long sessions (15-20 min). I've never tried eating a high carb meal before hand.... Is there a problem with HIIT and LC? I find it challenging, but not impossible... Genuinely curious here!
I was meaning referring to myself, but generally highly anaerobic exercises and lack of glycogen generally do not mix well (at least from what I have seen). But timing of nutrients and other factors can come into play.0 -
Ah okay... I was wondering if I was doing something wrong, lol... Not new to weight loss through diet, but I'm kind of an exercise newbie, lol.0
-
To answer the OP's question...35 pounds down so far with calorie counting and running every other day.0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »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?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
It's in the attitude one takes when approaching things. My sister latches on to anything new she discovers, these things aren't necessarily new, but they're new to her. They're fads or phases for her.
I see, nothing new then. Ancient latins called it "levitas animi" and it was the reason why women were considered incompetent...Oh wait
Misogynistic stereotyping coming from you. Quelle surprise.
I can't take you seriously, sorry.2 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »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?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
It's in the attitude one takes when approaching things. My sister latches on to anything new she discovers, these things aren't necessarily new, but they're new to her. They're fads or phases for her.
I see, nothing new then. Ancient latins called it "levitas animi" and it was the reason why women were considered incompetent...Oh wait
Misogynistic stereotyping coming from you. Quelle surprise.
I can't take you seriously, sorry.
You should.
Mirrors are a-plenty, use one.2 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »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?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
It's in the attitude one takes when approaching things. My sister latches on to anything new she discovers, these things aren't necessarily new, but they're new to her. They're fads or phases for her.
I see, nothing new then. Ancient latins called it "levitas animi" and it was the reason why women were considered incompetent...Oh wait
Misogynistic stereotyping coming from you. Quelle surprise.
I can't take you seriously, sorry.Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »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?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
It's in the attitude one takes when approaching things. My sister latches on to anything new she discovers, these things aren't necessarily new, but they're new to her. They're fads or phases for her.
I see, nothing new then. Ancient latins called it "levitas animi" and it was the reason why women were considered incompetent...Oh wait
Misogynistic stereotyping coming from you. Quelle surprise.
I can't take you seriously, sorry.
At least the feeling is mutual.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.
Agree with everything you said.. congratulations on your loss so far..I have also been doing something similar 40protein 40fat 20carbs and I'm never hungry ..I used to get hungry all the time in the evenings but now I very rarely think about food in between meals1 -
I've lost 40 lbs while consuming at least one can of Dr Pepper a day. In the beginning, it was 2-3. I've recently weaned down to a half can because my focus is now on health, not scale weight.
Dr. Pepper is my downfall. If I could wean to one a day, it would be a miracle. Good for you for taking one foot off the DP wagon.
0 -
A diet has to be feasable (works) and sustainable. About any diet can be feasible if you limit the calories. A low carb diet might be sustainable for some but is very hard for a lot of people (like me). I like fruits, legumes, whole grains, milk, and treats, etc. and I think most of that is good for us. A keto diet is a life saver for some with Type II diabetes or other sensitivities to certain carb-foods.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions