Why do people choose to do LCHF?
Replies
-
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »My chiropractor was telling me he just started doing it, he explained (and I also saw it in Runner's World magazine) that some runners do it so that their bodies will get used to using fat to fuel instead of carbs. The idea is that by the time you go to run the full marathon your body is used to this and you don't have to eat energy gels/use Gatorade throughout the race, and you avoid hitting the wall. I can't think of any other reason to do it though, doesn't seem like it's worth it for weight loss alone since you can still lose weight without going through all that.
I don't understand, because just doing long runs or rides at low intensity will also "train" your body to use fat for fuel.
Maybe, but perhaps they don't want to do the runs at low intensity.
If you don't include long runs in your training plan, your marathon probably isn't going to be very successful -- even if you are on a ketogenic diet. Getting through 26.2 miles is probably going to require some kind of long run experience -- even if your body is good at using fat for fuel.
If you don't want to do long runs, marathons probably aren't the best recreational choice.
I didn't say that the people following this plan for marathon training aren't doing long runs, I said maybe they don't want to do low-intensity runs. To be low enough in intensity to be in the "fat burning" zone, assuming it's not a myth, for me as a 29 year old female, I would have to do a long run with my heart rate at 118 to 138 beats per minute. That's much lower than my usual long-run heart rate, which is about 160 bpm even when I've slowed to a minute and a half over race pace. If I ran slow enough to be between 118 and 138 I wouldn't be hitting any PRs any time soon.
You don't have to run at the "fat burning" zone in order to get the benefits of a long run. Long runs, even when your heart rate is faster, help adapt how your body fuels the run. A long run, because the pace has to be sustainable for 90+ minutes, is low intensity even if your heart is beating faster than what some chart is showing for an "ideal" range.
So if all of this is true, and low intensity runs will train your body to use fat for fuel, as the first poster said, and all long runs are low intensity, then why doesn't everyone who trains for a marathon's body adapt to burning fat for fuel instead of carbs? Then everybody who has trained for a marathon could show up on race day and not need any gels or gatorade.
Because you vary intensities and your body utilizes both sources of fuel throughout the race. It's not just a linear source.
So then that would be the point of a keto diet while training for a marathon, so that you train your body to use fat for fuel no matter which intensity you are running at.0 -
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »My chiropractor was telling me he just started doing it, he explained (and I also saw it in Runner's World magazine) that some runners do it so that their bodies will get used to using fat to fuel instead of carbs. The idea is that by the time you go to run the full marathon your body is used to this and you don't have to eat energy gels/use Gatorade throughout the race, and you avoid hitting the wall. I can't think of any other reason to do it though, doesn't seem like it's worth it for weight loss alone since you can still lose weight without going through all that.
I don't understand, because just doing long runs or rides at low intensity will also "train" your body to use fat for fuel.
Maybe, but perhaps they don't want to do the runs at low intensity.
If you don't include long runs in your training plan, your marathon probably isn't going to be very successful -- even if you are on a ketogenic diet. Getting through 26.2 miles is probably going to require some kind of long run experience -- even if your body is good at using fat for fuel.
If you don't want to do long runs, marathons probably aren't the best recreational choice.
I didn't say that the people following this plan for marathon training aren't doing long runs, I said maybe they don't want to do low-intensity runs. To be low enough in intensity to be in the "fat burning" zone, assuming it's not a myth, for me as a 29 year old female, I would have to do a long run with my heart rate at 118 to 138 beats per minute. That's much lower than my usual long-run heart rate, which is about 160 bpm even when I've slowed to a minute and a half over race pace. If I ran slow enough to be between 118 and 138 I wouldn't be hitting any PRs any time soon.
You don't have to run at the "fat burning" zone in order to get the benefits of a long run. Long runs, even when your heart rate is faster, help adapt how your body fuels the run. A long run, because the pace has to be sustainable for 90+ minutes, is low intensity even if your heart is beating faster than what some chart is showing for an "ideal" range.
So if all of this is true, and low intensity runs will train your body to use fat for fuel, as the first poster said, and all long runs are low intensity, then why doesn't everyone who trains for a marathon's body adapt to burning fat for fuel instead of carbs? Then everybody who has trained for a marathon could show up on race day and not need any gels or gatorade.
Because you vary intensities and your body utilizes both sources of fuel throughout the race. It's not just a linear source.
So then that would be the point of a keto diet while training for a marathon, so that you train your body to use fat for fuel no matter which intensity you are running at.
I don't think the body works like that, especially when you are discussing aerobic vs anaerobic thresholds. The handful of keto cyclist that I have heard of, still consume a good amount of carbs on their runs and maybe consume a fairly high total of carbs in a given day (for more than your typical LCHF).0 -
IMO a lot of people don't really believe that calorie counting works / is effective. (Not people on here, but people out in the world.) So they hear things like: "I went on a low-carb diet and lost weight" or "I cut out all sugars except fruit and lost weight". And they think to themselves: "Oh! Carbs (or sugar, or whatever) cause weight gain!"
The truth is that people lose weight on those diets because they are cutting out calories when they cut out pancakes, cake, sugar, whatever. Which is a subtle but important difference compared to "Carbs are bad and make people fat."
It's is true that it's harder to overeat if you're just eating eggs, meat, and other high protein foods. But personally I will never give up pancakes. That's just crazy talk.
3 -
BlueSkyShoal wrote: »IMO a lot of people don't really believe that calorie counting works / is effective. (Not people on here, but people out in the world.) So they hear things like: "I went on a low-carb diet and lost weight" or "I cut out all sugars except fruit and lost weight". And they think to themselves: "Oh! Carbs (or sugar, or whatever) cause weight gain!"
The truth is that people lose weight on those diets because they are cutting out calories when they cut out pancakes, cake, sugar, whatever. Which is a subtle but important difference compared to "Carbs are bad and make people fat."
It's is true that it's harder to overeat if you're just eating eggs, meat, and other high protein foods. But personally I will never give up pancakes. That's just crazy talk.
I challenge that assumption.. haha... That is pretty much how I got fat... I just love meats.2 -
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »My chiropractor was telling me he just started doing it, he explained (and I also saw it in Runner's World magazine) that some runners do it so that their bodies will get used to using fat to fuel instead of carbs. The idea is that by the time you go to run the full marathon your body is used to this and you don't have to eat energy gels/use Gatorade throughout the race, and you avoid hitting the wall. I can't think of any other reason to do it though, doesn't seem like it's worth it for weight loss alone since you can still lose weight without going through all that.
It's usually referred to as being "fat adapted." The old belief was that nobody could possibly ever oxidize fat for fuel faster than 1g / min... and even then, only the best of the best elite athletes while typical recreational athletes are oxidizing fat for fuel at half that rate. Because of this belief, a practice was developed to constantly feed carbs during endurance events so that the athlete wouldn't run out of fuel.
New research has found that athletes who have become "fat adapted" (this takes weeks of eating low carb) are able to oxidize fat at much faster rates than previously believed. The error in previous studies was that it tested those who were not eating low carb or those who just switched to low carb at the beginning of the research and then testing ensued without providing time to become fat adapted. One study of note found that fat adapted athletes oxidized fat at around 1.4-1.6 g/min. (lowest was 1.2 g/min. and highest subject was 1.8 g/min.).
I'm not a professional athlete, but I am a runner. As I extend to longer and longer runs, I have been eating lower and lower carbs. I'm fat adapted and I know for certain that I'm primarily using fat for fuel because I wear a CGM (I'm a type 1 diabetic, so this CGM is mostly for monitoring BG's). For example, I went out on a run recently that lasted about 1:22 and was 8.34 miles. If I had tried that before becoming fat adapted, I would have had to decrease basal insulin (again, type 1 diabetic here, so I manage insulin manually) and/or consume carbohydrates at some point during the run in order to prevent and/or treat hypoglycemia and provide glucose as fuel. I can tell I'm fat adapted from my prior experience, my detailed tracking of glucose from food sources and glucose drop (use) from exercise. I always carry glucose tablets on run just in case, but almost never use them. In the past, I would have definitely been using them unless I wanted to wake up in an ambulance because I was using glucose faster than I could release glycogen and faster than GNG produced it.
As to OP's question... I originally started eating low carb to better manage BG's. This was after already trying to lose weight for more than 2 years and struggling to lose as quickly as CICO would suggest. What I did not expect was that I would lose faster. I only wanted the BG benefit, but it worked out that I started losing much more quickly at the same calorie intake. In fact, the first 8 months of low carb gave me weight loss almost 5 times faster at the same calorie deficit than simple CICO. I started eating low carb for better BG's, but I kept eating it because it worked for weight loss much better than just counting calories.2 -
Volek's FASTER study from last year shows that fat adapted (ketogenic for a long period of time) athletes had incredibly high rates of fat oxidation. Glucose burners can not ecome close to the same level of fat oxidation while exercising.
It isn't as beneficial for sedentary types like me.Lillymoo01 wrote: »I can see the benefits to a low carb diet but believe too many who follow it make some unhealthy food choices. I have read many who load up on saturated fats choosing the fattiest cuts of meat possible, having copius amounts of cheese and butter while consuming bacon daily and having heaps of processed meat. While fat has got an unnecessary bad rap in the past eating so much saturated in a day can increase you risks of heart disease so these people should be looking at more plant based fats for optimum health. Some are also not getting enough fibre which can do long term damage to the digestive system. Eating too much processed meat can increase your risk of bowel cancer.
The study that came out with that increased risk of bowel cancer was a bit alarmist. It said your risk of bowel cancer increased 20% if you ate processed meats. The risk of bowel cancer without processed meats is 5%. That means that 20% of that 5% is 1%. That brings up the risk of bowel cancer up from 5% to 6%.5 -
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »My chiropractor was telling me he just started doing it, he explained (and I also saw it in Runner's World magazine) that some runners do it so that their bodies will get used to using fat to fuel instead of carbs. The idea is that by the time you go to run the full marathon your body is used to this and you don't have to eat energy gels/use Gatorade throughout the race, and you avoid hitting the wall. I can't think of any other reason to do it though, doesn't seem like it's worth it for weight loss alone since you can still lose weight without going through all that.
I don't understand, because just doing long runs or rides at low intensity will also "train" your body to use fat for fuel.
Maybe, but perhaps they don't want to do the runs at low intensity.
If you don't include long runs in your training plan, your marathon probably isn't going to be very successful -- even if you are on a ketogenic diet. Getting through 26.2 miles is probably going to require some kind of long run experience -- even if your body is good at using fat for fuel.
If you don't want to do long runs, marathons probably aren't the best recreational choice.
I didn't say that the people following this plan for marathon training aren't doing long runs, I said maybe they don't want to do low-intensity runs. To be low enough in intensity to be in the "fat burning" zone, assuming it's not a myth, for me as a 29 year old female, I would have to do a long run with my heart rate at 118 to 138 beats per minute. That's much lower than my usual long-run heart rate, which is about 160 bpm even when I've slowed to a minute and a half over race pace. If I ran slow enough to be between 118 and 138 I wouldn't be hitting any PRs any time soon.
You don't have to run at the "fat burning" zone in order to get the benefits of a long run. Long runs, even when your heart rate is faster, help adapt how your body fuels the run. A long run, because the pace has to be sustainable for 90+ minutes, is low intensity even if your heart is beating faster than what some chart is showing for an "ideal" range.
So if all of this is true, and low intensity runs will train your body to use fat for fuel, as the first poster said, and all long runs are low intensity, then why doesn't everyone who trains for a marathon's body adapt to burning fat for fuel instead of carbs? Then everybody who has trained for a marathon could show up on race day and not need any gels or gatorade.
Because you vary intensities and your body utilizes both sources of fuel throughout the race. It's not just a linear source.
So then that would be the point of a keto diet while training for a marathon, so that you train your body to use fat for fuel no matter which intensity you are running at.
I don't think the body works like that, especially when you are discussing aerobic vs anaerobic thresholds. The handful of keto cyclist that I have heard of, still consume a good amount of carbs on their runs and maybe consume a fairly high total of carbs in a given day (for more than your typical LCHF).
I think that is true of low carbers who frequent the main forums. They like higher carb, or we like to argue.
In the LCD group, many exercise without any extra carbs, or exercise fasted.0 -
I've lost 14 lbs in the past 10 days eating 80% fat/15% protein/5% carbs...and drinking a metric butt-load of water.
Once I hit ketosis the hunger pretty much stopped, my energy level jumped, my mental acuity seems to have increased...and I started dropping pounds. So far I'm not seeing a downside.
3 -
I think the idea of it being "unhealthy" comes from the idea that (outside of this community) the vast number of "ketoers" on social media go on and on and on about bacon, and whipped cream, and cheese, and how it's a fabulous diet for those who hate fruit and vegetables (I didn't eat any vegetables except celery and lost 80 lbs!) So yes, absolutely the diet can be unhealthy in that it can lack nutrients. But.... A non-keto diet based wholly on bananas, diet coke, and lean cuisines would be equally unhealthy (another diet a different friend of mine lost 90 lbs on).5
-
Putting your body into Ketosis is not healthy or sustainable long term and bacon and cheeseburgers are not a health food. I think this is a big reason why people choose low carb diets because they rather eat more meat and dairy.
Like it or not, low fat plant based whole foods is the only diet proven to reverse heart disease so why on Earth are people still promoting and going in the extreme opposite direction unless they have specific health requirements? I know most of us don't...8 -
Putting your body into Ketosis is not healthy or sustainable long term and bacon and cheeseburgers are not a health food. I think this is a big reason why people choose low carb diets because they rather eat more meat and dairy.
Like it or not, low fat plant based whole foods is the only diet proven to reverse heart disease so why on Earth are people still promoting and going in the extreme opposite direction unless they have specific health requirements? I know most of us don't...
There is nothing unhealthy with nutritional ketosis. There is also a large amount of science that completely disagrees with your biased views. And going ketogeneic doesn't mean your entire diet is made up of processed foods. There are many on the Keto diet which eat in a manor that has been demonstrated to improve metabolic markers.
By your definition, you would suggest things like fish are unhealthy? How about chicken/bison, or full fat dairy?7 -
Putting your body into Ketosis is not healthy or sustainable long term and bacon and cheeseburgers are not a health food. I think this is a big reason why people choose low carb diets because they rather eat more meat and dairy.
Like it or not, low fat plant based whole foods is the only diet proven to reverse heart disease so why on Earth are people still promoting and going in the extreme opposite direction unless they have specific health requirements? I know most of us don't...
No. I eat LC and can't tell you the last time I ate bacon...or a cheeseburger, for that matter. I get a lot of vegetables in my diet and yes, a lot of meat and some dairy. But it's certainly not a pass for an all out grease laden free-for-all. And please, define "long term" because it's been 16 months for me and I'm still doing just fine with it. No, I don't have a specific health requirement that demands this WOE, I just prefer it. For me. And thankfully, me is all that matters here.2 -
Putting your body into Ketosis is not healthy or sustainable long term and bacon and cheeseburgers are not a health food. I think this is a big reason why people choose low carb diets because they rather eat more meat and dairy.
Like it or not, low fat plant based whole foods is the only diet proven to reverse heart disease so why on Earth are people still promoting and going in the extreme opposite direction unless they have specific health requirements? I know most of us don't...
So you're against what you think is an extreme diet (keto), but follow an extreme plan yourself (low fat/high carb plant based diet that has just as many restrictions as keto).
I'm not keto but oh, the irony
5 -
Not sure if it was mentioned before to explain LCHF but my understanding is the carbs they want cuts include a lot of the highly refined kinds while the gates are heart healthy kind. Have been Vegan for around 4yrs now an have tried the HCLF & LCHF diets with little success sadly. Now I kind of so my own thing while sticking to a WFPB (sticking to the low end of carbs) and listening to anything T. Colin Campbell puts out there (he doesn't come across as so peachy). I also like the author of "How Not To Die" but sadly cannot think of his name right now. Have an issue with high cholesterol that meds don't seem to be doing as much as I'd like so it so try to watch my fats (but love my Avocado0
-
This content has been removed.
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »CindyA2268 wrote: »Not sure if it was mentioned before to explain LCHF but my understanding is the carbs they want cuts include a lot of the highly refined kinds while the gates are heart healthy kind. Have been Vegan for around 4yrs now an have tried the HCLF & LCHF diets with little success sadly. Now I kind of so my own thing while sticking to a WFPB (sticking to the low end of carbs) and listening to anything T. Colin Campbell puts out there (he doesn't come across as so peachy). I also like the author of "How Not To Die" but sadly cannot think of his name right now. Have an issue with high cholesterol that meds don't seem to be doing as much as I'd like so it so try to watch my fats (but love my Avocado
OP hasn't been around in months.
Whats your point? Doesn't mean the discussions can't continue.3 -
I did this and it was the healthiest I've ever felt. No more post carb hangovers and I lost weight quickly and my tummy which was usually the last place to shrink shrank first!! Then I lost one of my incomes and couldn't sustain the cost of the diet. I would like to go back on it. Less sugar is always a good thing and since you're getting so little sugar it isn't being stored as fat and your fat melts off10
-
I tried Keto on three separate occasions (which is the first sign a diet isn’t working for you...)
I did initially lose a bit faster, but it was just water weight, which I don’t care about anyway. After that, my weight loss happened at the same rate as a carb-rich diet. I didn’t get the mental clarity or buckets of energy other talk about, but I did get insomnia, restlessness, and digestive issues. It simply wasn’t sustainable for me in the long-term because telling myself I must abstain from certain foods makes me want ALL of those certain foods. I would do well for a few weeks to a couple months, fall off the wagon, and gain all of the weight back.
I switched to straight and simple calorie counting and I couldn’t be happier. I’m losing at the same rate of Keto and I’ve learned that I actually *can* moderate myself. Knowing that no food is a “no-no” does wonders for my ability to sustain my calorie deficit. I no longer feel deprived or like I need to binge because I can fit whatever I want into my daily or weekly calorie goal.
That said, I don’t think LcHf/Keto is inherently unhealthy. It depends on the foods being eaten. But it isn’t some magic fat burner like I see touted (especially on the Keto subreddit). It works for people who feel satiated on fat. It won’t work for people who feel satiated with carbs.2 -
Jackibrazil wrote: »I did this and it was the healthiest I've ever felt. No more post carb hangovers and I lost weight quickly and my tummy which was usually the last place to shrink shrank first!! Then I lost one of my incomes and couldn't sustain the cost of the diet. I would like to go back on it. Less sugar is always a good thing and since you're getting so little sugar it isn't being stored as fat and your fat melts off
That isnt how the body works. Dietary fats store as body fat much easier than carbs. Carbs general store as glycogen in the muscles and liver or are immediately oxidized.6 -
Jackibrazil wrote: »I did this and it was the healthiest I've ever felt. No more post carb hangovers and I lost weight quickly and my tummy which was usually the last place to shrink shrank first!! Then I lost one of my incomes and couldn't sustain the cost of the diet. I would like to go back on it. Less sugar is always a good thing and since you're getting so little sugar it isn't being stored as fat and your fat melts off
That isnt how the body works. Dietary fats store as body fat much easier than carbs. Carbs general store as glycogen in the muscles and liver or are immediately oxidized.
This is incorrect. You're right that glucose converts to glycogen and is stored in the liver and muscles short term. However, the liver can only store about 100g of glucose in glycogen form. The muscles can also carry glycogen in the amount of about 500g. Any carbohydrates consumed beyond these capacities are converted to and stored as fat. There is no upward limit for calories stored as fat. Bio major.8 -
-
oh. I so don't want to be in this discussion. What was I thinking?
EDIT!!2 -
cmriverside wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »I did this and it was the healthiest I've ever felt. No more post carb hangovers and I lost weight quickly and my tummy which was usually the last place to shrink shrank first!! Then I lost one of my incomes and couldn't sustain the cost of the diet. I would like to go back on it. Less sugar is always a good thing and since you're getting so little sugar it isn't being stored as fat and your fat melts off
That isnt how the body works. Dietary fats store as body fat much easier than carbs. Carbs general store as glycogen in the muscles and liver or are immediately oxidized.
This is incorrect. You're right that glucose converts to glycogen and is stored in the liver and muscles short term. However, the liver can only store about 100g of glucose in glycogen form. The muscles can also carry glycogen in the amount of about 500g. Any carbohydrates consumed beyond these capacities are converted to and stored as fat. There is no upward limit for calories stored as fat. Bio major.
You are talking about EXCESS calories. Psulemon is talking about calories within TDEE.
They quoted my commented about my success with LCHF and told me that's not how the body works. The didn't specify that they were talking about calories within TDEE. Also you can have sugar intake too high and still be under your TDEE caloric goal so what I said still stands.
8 -
Jackibrazil wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »I did this and it was the healthiest I've ever felt. No more post carb hangovers and I lost weight quickly and my tummy which was usually the last place to shrink shrank first!! Then I lost one of my incomes and couldn't sustain the cost of the diet. I would like to go back on it. Less sugar is always a good thing and since you're getting so little sugar it isn't being stored as fat and your fat melts off
That isnt how the body works. Dietary fats store as body fat much easier than carbs. Carbs general store as glycogen in the muscles and liver or are immediately oxidized.
This is incorrect. You're right that glucose converts to glycogen and is stored in the liver and muscles short term. However, the liver can only store about 100g of glucose in glycogen form. The muscles can also carry glycogen in the amount of about 500g. Any carbohydrates consumed beyond these capacities are converted to and stored as fat. There is no upward limit for calories stored as fat. Bio major.
You are talking about EXCESS calories. Psulemon is talking about calories within TDEE.
They quoted my commented about my success with LCHF and told me that's not how the body works. The didn't specify that they were talking about calories within TDEE. Also you can have sugar intake too high and still be under your TDEE caloric goal so what I said still stands.
So you're saying that even if I eat less calories than my body needs, if I eat too much sugar my body will convert it to fat regardless? Could you explain how that happens?5 -
What day of the week is it again?
Let's just get real here for a minute.
All anyone cares about is net fat storage.
Body comp is impacted more by protein consumption than fat or carbs, so quibbling over fat vs. carbs is silly.
When it comes down to fat storage, calories are the driver when it comes to NET fat storage since we are burning and storing fat all day. It doesn't matter, IF YOUR PROTEIN INTAKE IS OPTIMAL, what your fat intake or your carb intake is. If your calories are in check, you won't store excess body fat.
LCHF is a dieting preference, it's a simple as that. There is not a fat burning advantage to it. There are countless studies that show when protein is held constant, carbs and fats don't matter.3 -
Jackibrazil wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »I did this and it was the healthiest I've ever felt. No more post carb hangovers and I lost weight quickly and my tummy which was usually the last place to shrink shrank first!! Then I lost one of my incomes and couldn't sustain the cost of the diet. I would like to go back on it. Less sugar is always a good thing and since you're getting so little sugar it isn't being stored as fat and your fat melts off
That isnt how the body works. Dietary fats store as body fat much easier than carbs. Carbs general store as glycogen in the muscles and liver or are immediately oxidized.
This is incorrect. You're right that glucose converts to glycogen and is stored in the liver and muscles short term. However, the liver can only store about 100g of glucose in glycogen form. The muscles can also carry glycogen in the amount of about 500g. Any carbohydrates consumed beyond these capacities are converted to and stored as fat. There is no upward limit for calories stored as fat. Bio major.
You are talking about EXCESS calories. Psulemon is talking about calories within TDEE.
They quoted my commented about my success with LCHF and told me that's not how the body works. The didn't specify that they were talking about calories within TDEE. Also you can have sugar intake too high and still be under your TDEE caloric goal so what I said still stands.
So you're saying that even if I eat less calories than my body needs, if I eat too much sugar my body will convert it to fat regardless? Could you explain how that happens?
Can you please read MY original comment? I was sharing my experience how while I had previously maintained a low calorie diet, when I started LCHF my weight loss shifted from being all over to suddenly I was losing my tummy fast. My weight loss was the same rate but I lost belly fat faster than before. That's usually the hardest and last place I lose it from. While consuming under your calorie goal you will lose weight, certain foods can impact where that weight comes from. Sugar is a huge component to excess belly fat, hence why when I went very low carb (despite high fat) I lost belly weight. My initial comment was MY OWN experience and when someone tried to poke holes in it I responded. No need to get offended.
EDIT: I presume since my belly is where I tend to store excess fat that my all over loss vs. belly loss may have been that some of my weight loss previous to going LCHF could have been muscle loss with fat loss and that when I transitioned to LCHF my protein and fat intake were better so I was primarily losing fat at that point. All of this is honestly very individual. I also suspect a little bit of insulin resistance to be present for me.9 -
Jackibrazil wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »I did this and it was the healthiest I've ever felt. No more post carb hangovers and I lost weight quickly and my tummy which was usually the last place to shrink shrank first!! Then I lost one of my incomes and couldn't sustain the cost of the diet. I would like to go back on it. Less sugar is always a good thing and since you're getting so little sugar it isn't being stored as fat and your fat melts off
That isnt how the body works. Dietary fats store as body fat much easier than carbs. Carbs general store as glycogen in the muscles and liver or are immediately oxidized.
This is incorrect. You're right that glucose converts to glycogen and is stored in the liver and muscles short term. However, the liver can only store about 100g of glucose in glycogen form. The muscles can also carry glycogen in the amount of about 500g. Any carbohydrates consumed beyond these capacities are converted to and stored as fat. There is no upward limit for calories stored as fat. Bio major.
You are talking about EXCESS calories. Psulemon is talking about calories within TDEE.
They quoted my commented about my success with LCHF and told me that's not how the body works. The didn't specify that they were talking about calories within TDEE. Also you can have sugar intake too high and still be under your TDEE caloric goal so what I said still stands.
So you're saying that even if I eat less calories than my body needs, if I eat too much sugar my body will convert it to fat regardless? Could you explain how that happens?
Can you please read MY original comment? I was sharing my experience how while I had previously maintained a low calorie diet, when I started LCHF my weight loss shifted from being all over to suddenly I was losing my tummy fast. My weight loss was the same rate but I lost belly fat faster than before. That's usually the hardest and last place I lose it from. While consuming under your calorie goal you will lose weight, certain foods can impact where that weight comes from. Sugar is a huge component to excess belly fat, hence why when I went very low carb (despite high fat) I lost belly weight. My initial comment was MY OWN experience and when someone tried to poke holes in it I responded. No need to get offended.
EDIT: I presume since my belly is where I tend to store excess fat that my all over loss vs. belly loss may have been that some of my weight loss previous to going LCHF could have been muscle loss with fat loss and that when I transitioned to LCHF my protein and fat intake were better so I was primarily losing fat at that point. All of this is honestly very individual. I also suspect a little bit of insulin resistance to be present for me.
This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing your experiences.
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, but I'm a little confused. How do you know you were losing fat from your belly as opposed to decreased bloating that just looked like belly fat. I've always understood that you can't spot reduce, but isn't that what you're saying?
5 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »Jackibrazil wrote: »I did this and it was the healthiest I've ever felt. No more post carb hangovers and I lost weight quickly and my tummy which was usually the last place to shrink shrank first!! Then I lost one of my incomes and couldn't sustain the cost of the diet. I would like to go back on it. Less sugar is always a good thing and since you're getting so little sugar it isn't being stored as fat and your fat melts off
That isnt how the body works. Dietary fats store as body fat much easier than carbs. Carbs general store as glycogen in the muscles and liver or are immediately oxidized.
This is incorrect. You're right that glucose converts to glycogen and is stored in the liver and muscles short term. However, the liver can only store about 100g of glucose in glycogen form. The muscles can also carry glycogen in the amount of about 500g. Any carbohydrates consumed beyond these capacities are converted to and stored as fat. There is no upward limit for calories stored as fat. Bio major.
You are talking about EXCESS calories. Psulemon is talking about calories within TDEE.
They quoted my commented about my success with LCHF and told me that's not how the body works. The didn't specify that they were talking about calories within TDEE. Also you can have sugar intake too high and still be under your TDEE caloric goal so what I said still stands.
So you're saying that even if I eat less calories than my body needs, if I eat too much sugar my body will convert it to fat regardless? Could you explain how that happens?
Can you please read MY original comment? I was sharing my experience how while I had previously maintained a low calorie diet, when I started LCHF my weight loss shifted from being all over to suddenly I was losing my tummy fast. My weight loss was the same rate but I lost belly fat faster than before. That's usually the hardest and last place I lose it from. While consuming under your calorie goal you will lose weight, certain foods can impact where that weight comes from. Sugar is a huge component to excess belly fat, hence why when I went very low carb (despite high fat) I lost belly weight. My initial comment was MY OWN experience and when someone tried to poke holes in it I responded. No need to get offended.
EDIT: I presume since my belly is where I tend to store excess fat that my all over loss vs. belly loss may have been that some of my weight loss previous to going LCHF could have been muscle loss with fat loss and that when I transitioned to LCHF my protein and fat intake were better so I was primarily losing fat at that point. All of this is honestly very individual. I also suspect a little bit of insulin resistance to be present for me.
This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing your experiences.
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, but I'm a little confused. How do you know you were losing fat from your belly as opposed to decreased bloating that just looked like belly fat. I've always understood that you can't spot reduce, but isn't that what you're saying?
I guess I couldn't know with 100% certainty but I was already on a grain free FODMAP diet for my celiac and other gastro issues and had decreased and kept water weight off for some time. My sodium levels were borderline low and I stay very well hydrated so I don't think my body shouldn't have been retaining much. Also, the inches stayed off for a prolonged time. And the inches I lost had been settled in there for years.
Edit: For perspective we're talking 6-7 inches lost in my waist. If I'd been retaining THAT MUCH water weight in my abdomen it would have been obvious and scary.0 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »They probably do it because they think they have to suffer to lose weight.
Suffering by eating bacon. Yep, life sure is tough. Look, I fully get that not everybody enjoys fattier foods, but these sort of judgmental posts don’t help anyone.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions