High fats low carb - not losing weight
Options
Replies
-
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!!0
-
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.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Later studies, including the NuSi ones, have demonstrated that when variables are controlled there is no fat loss benefit to low carb. Other studies (less controlled) have indicated that there may be a benefit to low carb for IR people, with a corresponding benefit to low fat for IS people (that's insulin resistant and sensitive).
This concept is so fascinating to me, since I thrive on a low fat, moderately high carb diet. When I'm in a calorie deficit, I not only get quite lean, but my autoimmune disease is extremely well-controlled.
4 -
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?12
-
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?
Here's two people who don't believe in CICO. The one on the left (Jimmy Moore of "Livin' La Vida Lowcarb" fame) regained 60 lbs. while on a strict LCHF keto diet. The one on the right (Durianrider) is a hardcore HCLF vegan. Yep, nasty, nasty carbs.
7 -
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
After only two weeks, I wouldn't worry about it. If you continue to get smaller, it is possible to not lose another pound, but smaller is the goal, right?
Consider joining the Low Carber Daily for LCHF advice. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group The boards are most focused on keeping CI<CO through moderation and not through macro manipulation.
Also, there are a few success stories in there where people post pictures rather than scale numbers. There is one about stalls where a member shares her pictures over a 6 month period. I believe she actually gained a couple of pounds but it is very obvious that she went down at least one size. I think it was before she started an exercise program too. It's a good reminder that it isn't all about the scale.
If what you were doing was working, it will most likely continue to work.
Best wishes.
0 -
I would check out dietdoctor.com. I have been tuning into their website and seem they seem to know a lot about the LCHF lifestyle and how to bust through plateaus.0
-
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!
Im on low fat high carb due to a health issue.I not only lost weight due to being in a deficit. I have lost fat,I lost 1/2 inch off my hips and my waist just this month alone and I only lost 0.4lbs this month as well(trying to eat in maintenance too). and my triglycerides are down to a normal level as well,they never were since I have had high cholesterol. But thats not going to work for everyone. if you think a deficit isnt what works,try your WOE and eat in a surplus if you think macros has anything to do with it and not a deficit.or try changing your macros around but still be in a deficit(weigh everything to the T) and see what happens. it is all about the deficit,I have tried many ways of eating and I lost weight with all of them,I was in a deficit with all of them as well5 -
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!!
I am low fat high carb some days Im over 200g and I lost a 1/2 inch in my waist and hips this month alone.so no fat storage here. fat is stored in a surplus not a deficit.I also only have about 18lbs to lose.and eating keto with the high fat could literally kill me due to my health issue3 -
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)1 -
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.1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey 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!!
I am low fat high carb some days Im over 200g and I lost a 1/2 inch in my waist and hips this month alone.so no fat storage here. fat is stored in a surplus not a deficit.I also only have about 18lbs to lose.and eating keto with the high fat could literally kill me due to my health issue
Another low fat high carber chiming in. Same medical issue here as well. Not storing fat. Lost quite a great deal of it, in fact, and still losing.6 -
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 45-55.0 -
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.
4 -
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 days0 -
sunfastrose wrote: »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.
15 years is amazing-well done! My four year maintenance anniversary is April 1st, (and I also eat a higher carb diet).
I do think some people thrive off of a lower carb plan, and as long as we all find what we can do long term (because weight loss means nothing if you can't sustain the loss), then that's all that matters 6 -
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.
2 -
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.4
-
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 lol1 -
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
Impressive0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions