High fats low carb - not losing weight

124»

Replies

  • jdwils14
    jdwils14 Posts: 154 Member
    edited January 2017
    jajohnso77 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jajohnso77 wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

    Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

    I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

    Cheers!

    Not really.... in order to lose weight a person needs to be in a calorie deficit, period.

    But is that really true? If you look at the Harvard Study that Greene did her findings weren't quite as definitive:

    "A study put three groups of dieters on different regimens. They included a low-fat group, a low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories, and a third group on a similar low-carbohydrate plan that included 300 extra calories a day. The low-carbohydrate dieters lost more weight than low-fat dieters despite eating 25,000 extra calories over a 12-week study period. The findings generated national attention after Penelope Greene, a visiting scholar in the Harvard School of Public Health’s Nutrition Department, presented her research Oct. 13, 2003, at the annual meeting of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Greene conducted the study with Walter Willett, Nutrition Department chair and Fredrick Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition. Participants in all three groups lost weight, Greene said, with the low-fat group losing an average of 17 pounds and the low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories losing 23 pounds. The biggest surprise, however, was that the low-carbohydrate dieters eating extra calories lost more than those on the low-fat diet. Participants in that low-carbohydrate group lost an average of 20 pounds. (emphasis mine)

    So can we really say that calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight - period? This is just one of many studies that shows taking in more calories of a different type can still lead to weight loss. It's the type of calorie that counts more than the calorie. My car engine performs more efficiently with 93 Octane than 89 Octane but they are both gasoline. Perhaps its the content of the gas that helps my engine run smoother. I think the same argument can be made that the type of calorie being consumed is more important than the number of them.
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Also, are you saying that you would store fat even if you kept your calories constant (i.e. a deficit) just by changing your macro split?

    Can you ask that a different way? Are you asking would I store fat if I changed my diet to be LFHC and changed nothing else?


    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-dieting-not-all-calo/

    this study shows that people on high fat diets and processing fats for energy each day actually burn more energy just for that very fact. The body is working harder to obtain the energy necessary for the same output compared with one that is able to process carbohydrates. This is something most people don't take into account when they calculate TDEE and deficit.

    edit: By "able," I am referring to an available supply of carbohydrates which the body will choose to process every time due to its lower requirement of energy to change. If you force your body to obtain energy through means that require it to do more, more calories are spent to do so.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    fitchick256 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jajohnso77 wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

    Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

    I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

    Cheers!

    Not really.... in order to lose weight a person needs to be in a calorie deficit, period. Eating a certain way, like LCHF may result in some more rapid short term water weight loss, but over time this evens out. Some people have a medical reason to restrict carbs, and some folks find it easier to achieve a deficit eating this way because they are satiated, but from a purely fat loss perspective, there is no advantage to a LC diet.

    Also, are you saying that you would store fat even if you kept your calories constant (i.e. a deficit) just by changing your macro split?

    Check the evidence, or pick up one of the many fascinating books that outline body metabolism and food storage. What you eat DOES matter. The only way I ever lose weight is to keep carbs down. The one adjustment I might recommend for the original poster is to try eating a few more calories - it's possible that your results will improve.

    Seriously? I'm glad it works for you, but blanket statements not backed by science just does not fly.

    I don't want to waste money on books when I can obtain scientific studies from Google Scholar for FREE. I don't want to line some quacks pockets...

    I've done low carb. It caused me grief.. my digestive system hated it and still freaks out if I go over 60g of fat. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's bad for everyone if it didn't work for me.

    I've lost 100lbs eating moderate to highish carbs. Why? I weigh my food. All of it. I did an experiment with LC and moderation with the same deficit and weighing food. In the end, I lost the same amount of weight on both WOEs. I was supervised by my ex dietitian. Yep... someone with a degree. ;)

    It all boils down to CICO. Low fat, high carb, low carb, high protein: it's all apart of CICO.

    Science is a beautiful thing..

    high fat causes me stomach issues too I eat 66 grams(usually Im under that)

    I'm lower than that, but since I'm eating in a deficit, our ratio is likely similar. I eat around 45-55.
  • sunfastrose
    sunfastrose Posts: 543 Member
    crzycatlady1 wrote: »
    So you're in maintenance then? Us maintainers are a rare breed and it's always nice to find a fellow one :)

    * Waves hi! * I'm a fellow maintainer - over 15 years so far (lost exact count sometime back). And I did and am doing it with a diet that satisfies me and happens to be higher carb.

  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    fitchick256 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    jajohnso77 wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

    Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

    I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

    Cheers!

    Not really.... in order to lose weight a person needs to be in a calorie deficit, period. Eating a certain way, like LCHF may result in some more rapid short term water weight loss, but over time this evens out. Some people have a medical reason to restrict carbs, and some folks find it easier to achieve a deficit eating this way because they are satiated, but from a purely fat loss perspective, there is no advantage to a LC diet.

    Also, are you saying that you would store fat even if you kept your calories constant (i.e. a deficit) just by changing your macro split?

    Check the evidence, or pick up one of the many fascinating books that outline body metabolism and food storage. What you eat DOES matter. The only way I ever lose weight is to keep carbs down. The one adjustment I might recommend for the original poster is to try eating a few more calories - it's possible that your results will improve.

    Seriously? I'm glad it works for you, but blanket statements not backed by science just does not fly.

    I don't want to waste money on books when I can obtain scientific studies from Google Scholar for FREE. I don't want to line some quacks pockets...

    I've done low carb. It caused me grief.. my digestive system hated it and still freaks out if I go over 60g of fat. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's bad for everyone if it didn't work for me.

    I've lost 100lbs eating moderate to highish carbs. Why? I weigh my food. All of it. I did an experiment with LC and moderation with the same deficit and weighing food. In the end, I lost the same amount of weight on both WOEs. I was supervised by my ex dietitian. Yep... someone with a degree. ;)

    It all boils down to CICO. Low fat, high carb, low carb, high protein: it's all apart of CICO.

    Science is a beautiful thing..

    high fat causes me stomach issues too I eat 66 grams(usually Im under that)

    I'm lower than that, but since I'm eating in a deficit, our ratio is likely similar. I eat around 45-55.

    yeah most days Im under that amount. especially if I eat better those days
  • Quel45
    Quel45 Posts: 6 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    tarothelp wrote: »
    Learn about ketosis and a ketogenic diet 200 g carbs per day is too high for this to work in my opinion (and I have successfully done ketogenic diet and lost weight). If u r consuming low enough carbohydrates your body will burn fat for fuel. But the body will take the oath of least resistance. If there are carbs present ur bod will use those for fuel and store the fat sonu must be careful and do this CORRECTLY in order for it to work. Google ketosis. And ketogenic diet I find t easier if u have lots of weight to loose but there are many bodybuilder who swear by this approach Good luck!!

    1) This is completely incorrect. Plenty of people have successfully lost weight eating 200g or more of carbs.

    2) No. There is no net storage of fat while in a caloric deficit regardless of whether you are eating a keto diet or not. And fat (in a caloric surplus) is much more readily stored as fat than carbohydrates are. De novo lipogenesis is an inefficient and fairly "costly" (in metabolic terms) process, and does not occur unless the body is chronically overfed surplus amounts of carbohydrates.


    Keto is one of many possible ways to lose weight, but it's not magical. There is no metabolic advantage to it and you don't lose weight any faster or easier than by any other macro combination.

  • Quel45
    Quel45 Posts: 6 Member
    I have to chime in. Bottom line, not any one plan works for ever body. Figuring out what works for you takes time. The only thing that works for everybody is restricting calories. You can't possibly lose weight if you were not reducing your caloric intake it. It's impossible. Some people respond well to the keto diet. Some people do not. ( One person said that you can't lose weight if you were eating fat because your body will store fat as fat before it will store carbs as fat. That's simply not true. ) If your carbs are low enough ( under 20g or 10% of your caloric intake) your body will use consumed fat and fat stores as fuel) . But for some people this doesn't work. They may feel worse if they do this. But for many people it works very well. There is never a one food lifestyle that is working for everybody.
  • kq1981
    kq1981 Posts: 1,098 Member
    Lchf was not sustainable for me when I did it. I lost 6 kilos and put it all back on plus some wen I couldn't maintain it (I'm a very busy working single mum).
    Mfp has been the BEST thing I have tried and am absolutely committed more so than anything I have before. Calories in calories out. That's it. I can't do restriction. I'm Italian, I need the pasta lol
  • _chunkadunk
    _chunkadunk Posts: 13 Member
    Keto diet isn't just about losing weight it's about changing your whole lifestyle around. I know
    Many many people who are using this way of eating and have lost drastically when doing it correctly and not cheating. I wouldn't knock it to you try it . Many health benefits . I lost 19 pounds my first 3 weeks . Pretty
    Impressive
  • veganbaum
    veganbaum Posts: 1,865 Member
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    So I guess using some people's logic in here most vegans (usually hclf) should he super duper obese because omg carbs make you fat?

    Consider this comment OP - all vegans are not fat. And, there are plenty of vegan bodybuilders and elite athletes. They are clearly not overweight. Vegans can be overweight, as can a person on any sort of diet as it is not type of diet that dictates weight, but rather how much one eats.

    OP - I sincerely hope you can cut through the ridiculous claims in this thread about the importance of eating low carb for weight loss. Based on the title of your thread, I'm assuming you have some sort of belief that eating LCHF means you should be dropping weight, but yet you also mention eating an average of 1500 calories a day (and don't mention where you got that number from), and then you mentioned how you may start upping your exercise. This leads me to believe you may not fully understand the process.

    You need to eat in a deficit - take in fewer calories than your body burns - to lose weight. For weight loss purposes, it does not matter where those calories come from. That might be where you want to start - are you logging accurately (this includes choosing accurate entries from the database)?

    Additionally, as several have mentioned, weight loss is not linear and the closer you get to goal, especially when in a healthy weight range, the more your weight loss will seem to stall. Again, as several have said, normal fluctuations can mask actual loss. It's important to understand this or you may drive yourself crazy and start trying to change things all over the place when what you really need to do is have patience.

    I am on (what I expect to be) my last 15 pounds or so. I just started upping my daily walking and started a bodyweight training program after having not lifted weights since I had two injuries last spring and summer (not due to lifting). I will spend days/weeks mostly at one number (I weigh daily and track the trend with trendweight.com), maybe go up a pound, back down, down a pound, back up, then finally go down maybe half a pound and remain steady and then start the fluctuations all over again before dropping another half pound or pound. I know I'm eating at a deficit and I started a new exercise regime (retaining water), so I just accept it (sometimes gritting my teeth) and keep going. I know the scale will move downwards over time. I could make my deficit bigger if I wanted to see more steady losses, but being close to goal, I do not want to risk more muscle loss than necessary. So I keep my goal at half a pound a week.

    Patience and consistency are necessary to be successful at weight loss. Given how many people regain after weight loss, I would say that it's good to develop patience and consistency while losing as you'll need to be consistent in maintenance as well. Also, consider whether LCHF is how you want to eat for the rest of your life. If the answer is no, you might want to consider a different way of eating now.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,468 Member
    I have done both the woes of the lchf and hclf. I lost weight on both and gained weight on both. I like to eat nothing but bread and fruit actually, unfortunately eventually it gets out of hand and I eat excessive amounts. I can overeat on low carb too. Admittedly I found myself unable to do really low or no carb, it doesnt agree with my digestion. I did a keto diet a few years ago and after a few months of feeling lousy in ketosis I jumped back into vegetarian high carb. Now I'm eating lowish carbs, dairy, vegetables, fish, a little fruit, in fresh foods. I'm more stable. No advice, just experience.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    cbarann89 wrote: »
    Keto diet isn't just about losing weight it's about changing your whole lifestyle around. I know
    Many many people who are using this way of eating and have lost drastically when doing it correctly and not cheating. I wouldn't knock it to you try it . Many health benefits . I lost 19 pounds my first 3 weeks . Pretty
    Impressive

    I've tried it.

    I certainly knock it.

    It was one of the worst experiences in my losing weight because I believed the drivel of how aaahhhhhnazing keto/lost w carb is. If you call spending several days a week in the bathroom amazing, I'd hate to see what horrible is. That's great that it works for some people, but for me it was painful hell.

    It's not a magical weight loss diet. A bit of water weight loss in the first few weeks is cool, but not worth it due to the weight loss outcomes from all calorie restricted diets being the same. Meh. I'd rather eat and be comfortable and happy.

    I lost 13lvs of water weight in 1 week. Sorry, but it's just water weight. Big deal.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    sam_ibrahim13 wrote: »
    So I'm a lb shy of being a healthy weight in terms of BMI. I want to lose another 14lb. I haven't lost in two weeks, as per title I'm following a high fat low carb diet recently. I've not lost a lb, I've started exercising (once a week at body combat) I'm fairly active in the day as I'm a mum to two little people! Not sure where I'm going wrong, do I need to exercise more? I went for the high fat low carb route as lots of the food I already eat so it just logging it all, eating I'd say 1500 cal a day

    With only 14 pounds to lose, it's going to be slow. Many women who are close to goal just notice weight loss after their period - where are you in your menstrual cycle?

    Also, since you've just started body combat, you could be retaining some water from that, which would mask fat loss.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    So I guess using some people's logic in here most vegans (usually hclf) should he super duper obese because omg carbs make you fat?

    Yes, I spent three years living in vegetarian yoga retreat centers where the food was inherently HCLF. The live-in staff and guests were fitter than the general population. Perhaps yoga magically negates the magical fat-storage powers of carbs? :D
This discussion has been closed.

Categories