Eating what you want within calories vs Keto within calories
Replies
-
I found a low carb diet too restrictive. I was bored. In saying that I eat what I want, calorie restricted and naturally have low-ish carbs compared to before (I cut out bread for example). But I still have small pleasures like chocolate, waffles or mash potato when I want them. I lost more weight on calorie and portion control than I ever did on low carb but each to their own and I wish you the best of luck.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?
I'm neutral on the idea of calling how I eat low carb. One part of why I don't, however, is that I perceive the low carbers at MFP, on average, to be keto-oriented, and to count carbs, and to be extremely low and often the implied suggestion so often, as I read it anyway (and I don't mean from you, but more generally) is that carbs (even vegetables, fruit, other whole foods) are bad because carbs, less is always better, any carbs are bad for health, being close to 0 in sugar is good, even if the sugar is from fruits and veg, etc. That is definitely not how I think of things. I have a personal preference for a diet that happens to be lower than average in total carbs, but not because I think high carb or average carb diets are unhealthy or would be bad for me. Just because of food preferences.
Beyond that, I think of low carb as actively counting and monitoring carbs and I don't try to hit any particular number or really care if I eat more carbs one day, more fat the next. When I log and eat as I like (mainly because for me the meat (or other protein) and vegetables are the essential part of the meals, the starch the extra and for me satisfying even in smaller quantities and not essential to a meal), I happen to come in at 100-150 g, on average. So I'd say I'm not actively low carbing (although like I said I am kind of interested in trying it for a bit, just not so low that I'd be limiting vegetables).
As for what I call my diet, I don't really like the idea of named diets or ways of eating, but if I had to characterize mine I'd just say it was a nutrition-conscious, mostly whole foods based style of eating. I think that's healthy within a wide range of carbs, I just happen to have taste preferences that put me on the lower third (maybe) of that wide range.
My debating about 150 g being low carb (or 140 or whatever) ISN'T because it bothers me if it is, but because people slam the SAD or the MFP default as high carb and that seems inconsistent to me. The SAD is about 50% carb and at 1200 calories 150 g IS 50% carbs. Sure, I think it's better to eat a bit higher cal, for most people, but even at 1600, 50% carbs is only 200 g -- I don't quite get saying that anything from 0-150 are low carb and are basically the same way of eating, but 200=high carb. There is more of a difference in eating under 20 g of carbs (which would be really challenging for me) from 125 g, IMO, than between 150 g and 200 g (and I say that even though I found eating around 200 g to be not for me).
But of course I'm biased by personal experience, and that's that my carbs were probably about 40%-45% when I was gaining weight. I didn't really change the ratio of fats to carbs ever -- I cut both fat and carbs and increased protein some when I decided to lose. So for me it just didn't feel like low carbing; that wasn't the main change, being mindful about some other things was (and dealing with emotional eating, but my emotional eating was mostly fat+carb).
Thanks for the explanation.
You might consider joining the Low Carber Daily. It may help you with ideas or information. Two of the mods are slow carbers: one is slightly above the usual rough 150g carb limit for what is low carb, and the other has been as low as keto but has found it isn't meeting her needs anymore and has moved on to a higher low carb level. Another mod is using LCHF to keto to treat T2D, and another is basically a carnivore.
Like on the main boards, I think the keto'ers tend to be more active and vocal. Many low carbers don't even bother joining the LCD because they feel their carb macro is not unusually low - they need no extra support. Sort of like your experiences.
Anyways, something to consider. Following discussions could sway your opinion to try lower carb one way or the other.
Interesting enough, I used to be a part of the LC group and then was removed once it went private, and I got booted, lol.
@lemurcat12 I believe @nvmomketo is right that glucose needs is what derives why LC is defined at 140g or less. Even so, there is no reason you have to label yourself one diet vs another. I personally eat whatever way I want to eat and never feel a reason to label myself. Restriction type diets do not work for me at all, but if I gravitate towards a particular diet, then I'm good. I do feel some people like the labels as it helps assimilate/connect with other members.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?
I'm neutral on the idea of calling how I eat low carb. One part of why I don't, however, is that I perceive the low carbers at MFP, on average, to be keto-oriented, and to count carbs, and to be extremely low and often the implied suggestion so often, as I read it anyway (and I don't mean from you, but more generally) is that carbs (even vegetables, fruit, other whole foods) are bad because carbs, less is always better, any carbs are bad for health, being close to 0 in sugar is good, even if the sugar is from fruits and veg, etc. That is definitely not how I think of things. I have a personal preference for a diet that happens to be lower than average in total carbs, but not because I think high carb or average carb diets are unhealthy or would be bad for me. Just because of food preferences.
Beyond that, I think of low carb as actively counting and monitoring carbs and I don't try to hit any particular number or really care if I eat more carbs one day, more fat the next. When I log and eat as I like (mainly because for me the meat (or other protein) and vegetables are the essential part of the meals, the starch the extra and for me satisfying even in smaller quantities and not essential to a meal), I happen to come in at 100-150 g, on average. So I'd say I'm not actively low carbing (although like I said I am kind of interested in trying it for a bit, just not so low that I'd be limiting vegetables).
As for what I call my diet, I don't really like the idea of named diets or ways of eating, but if I had to characterize mine I'd just say it was a nutrition-conscious, mostly whole foods based style of eating. I think that's healthy within a wide range of carbs, I just happen to have taste preferences that put me on the lower third (maybe) of that wide range.
My debating about 150 g being low carb (or 140 or whatever) ISN'T because it bothers me if it is, but because people slam the SAD or the MFP default as high carb and that seems inconsistent to me. The SAD is about 50% carb and at 1200 calories 150 g IS 50% carbs. Sure, I think it's better to eat a bit higher cal, for most people, but even at 1600, 50% carbs is only 200 g -- I don't quite get saying that anything from 0-150 are low carb and are basically the same way of eating, but 200=high carb. There is more of a difference in eating under 20 g of carbs (which would be really challenging for me) from 125 g, IMO, than between 150 g and 200 g (and I say that even though I found eating around 200 g to be not for me).
But of course I'm biased by personal experience, and that's that my carbs were probably about 40%-45% when I was gaining weight. I didn't really change the ratio of fats to carbs ever -- I cut both fat and carbs and increased protein some when I decided to lose. So for me it just didn't feel like low carbing; that wasn't the main change, being mindful about some other things was (and dealing with emotional eating, but my emotional eating was mostly fat+carb).
Thanks for the explanation.
You might consider joining the Low Carber Daily. It may help you with ideas or information. Two of the mods are slow carbers: one is slightly above the usual rough 150g carb limit for what is low carb, and the other has been as low as keto but has found it isn't meeting her needs anymore and has moved on to a higher low carb level. Another mod is using LCHF to keto to treat T2D, and another is basically a carnivore.
Like on the main boards, I think the keto'ers tend to be more active and vocal. Many low carbers don't even bother joining the LCD because they feel their carb macro is not unusually low - they need no extra support. Sort of like your experiences.
Anyways, something to consider. Following discussions could sway your opinion to try lower carb one way or the other.
Interesting enough, I used to be a part of the LC group and then was removed once it went private, and I got booted, lol.
@lemurcat12 I believe @nvmomketo is right that glucose needs is what derives why LC is defined at 140g or less. Even so, there is no reason you have to label yourself one diet vs another. I personally eat whatever way I want to eat and never feel a reason to label myself. Restriction type diets do not work for me at all, but if I gravitate towards a particular diet, then I'm good. I do feel some people like the labels as it helps assimilate/connect with other members.
Like I said, the RDA seems to be 130, so that would make more sense to me. But yeah, probably just an extra 10 for inaccuracy, and I think the 130 is based on estimates about glucose and the brain.
I'm not concerned about the label one way or another. Now that I can eat meat again I'm probably going to be around 100 g, which is low or low-ish even in my book, at least at my current calories. I'm going to decide this week if I want to try lowering it starting next week--I'm kind of interested in the experiment.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?
I'm neutral on the idea of calling how I eat low carb. One part of why I don't, however, is that I perceive the low carbers at MFP, on average, to be keto-oriented, and to count carbs, and to be extremely low and often the implied suggestion so often, as I read it anyway (and I don't mean from you, but more generally) is that carbs (even vegetables, fruit, other whole foods) are bad because carbs, less is always better, any carbs are bad for health, being close to 0 in sugar is good, even if the sugar is from fruits and veg, etc. That is definitely not how I think of things. I have a personal preference for a diet that happens to be lower than average in total carbs, but not because I think high carb or average carb diets are unhealthy or would be bad for me. Just because of food preferences.
Beyond that, I think of low carb as actively counting and monitoring carbs and I don't try to hit any particular number or really care if I eat more carbs one day, more fat the next. When I log and eat as I like (mainly because for me the meat (or other protein) and vegetables are the essential part of the meals, the starch the extra and for me satisfying even in smaller quantities and not essential to a meal), I happen to come in at 100-150 g, on average. So I'd say I'm not actively low carbing (although like I said I am kind of interested in trying it for a bit, just not so low that I'd be limiting vegetables).
As for what I call my diet, I don't really like the idea of named diets or ways of eating, but if I had to characterize mine I'd just say it was a nutrition-conscious, mostly whole foods based style of eating. I think that's healthy within a wide range of carbs, I just happen to have taste preferences that put me on the lower third (maybe) of that wide range.
My debating about 150 g being low carb (or 140 or whatever) ISN'T because it bothers me if it is, but because people slam the SAD or the MFP default as high carb and that seems inconsistent to me. The SAD is about 50% carb and at 1200 calories 150 g IS 50% carbs. Sure, I think it's better to eat a bit higher cal, for most people, but even at 1600, 50% carbs is only 200 g -- I don't quite get saying that anything from 0-150 are low carb and are basically the same way of eating, but 200=high carb. There is more of a difference in eating under 20 g of carbs (which would be really challenging for me) from 125 g, IMO, than between 150 g and 200 g (and I say that even though I found eating around 200 g to be not for me).
But of course I'm biased by personal experience, and that's that my carbs were probably about 40%-45% when I was gaining weight. I didn't really change the ratio of fats to carbs ever -- I cut both fat and carbs and increased protein some when I decided to lose. So for me it just didn't feel like low carbing; that wasn't the main change, being mindful about some other things was (and dealing with emotional eating, but my emotional eating was mostly fat+carb).
Thanks for the explanation.
You might consider joining the Low Carber Daily. It may help you with ideas or information. Two of the mods are slow carbers: one is slightly above the usual rough 150g carb limit for what is low carb, and the other has been as low as keto but has found it isn't meeting her needs anymore and has moved on to a higher low carb level. Another mod is using LCHF to keto to treat T2D, and another is basically a carnivore.
Like on the main boards, I think the keto'ers tend to be more active and vocal. Many low carbers don't even bother joining the LCD because they feel their carb macro is not unusually low - they need no extra support. Sort of like your experiences.
Anyways, something to consider. Following discussions could sway your opinion to try lower carb one way or the other.
Interesting enough, I used to be a part of the LC group and then was removed once it went private, and I got booted, lol.
@lemurcat12 I believe @nvmomketo is right that glucose needs is what derives why LC is defined at 140g or less. Even so, there is no reason you have to label yourself one diet vs another. I personally eat whatever way I want to eat and never feel a reason to label myself. Restriction type diets do not work for me at all, but if I gravitate towards a particular diet, then I'm good. I do feel some people like the labels as it helps assimilate/connect with other members.
Like I said, the RDA seems to be 130, so that would make more sense to me. But yeah, probably just an extra 10 for inaccuracy, and I think the 130 is based on estimates about glucose and the brain.
I'm not concerned about the label one way or another. Now that I can eat meat again I'm probably going to be around 100 g, which is low or low-ish even in my book, at least at my current calories. I'm going to decide this week if I want to try lowering it starting next week--I'm kind of interested in the experiment.
If you do experiment, I recommend avoiding going in and out of low carb for the first few weeks while becoming more fat adapted. There can be a mild energy low during that time and it is thought that cycling carbs could drag that time period out.
And of course, if you feel very tired, add sodium, potassium and possibly magnesium.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?
I'm neutral on the idea of calling how I eat low carb. One part of why I don't, however, is that I perceive the low carbers at MFP, on average, to be keto-oriented, and to count carbs, and to be extremely low and often the implied suggestion so often, as I read it anyway (and I don't mean from you, but more generally) is that carbs (even vegetables, fruit, other whole foods) are bad because carbs, less is always better, any carbs are bad for health, being close to 0 in sugar is good, even if the sugar is from fruits and veg, etc. That is definitely not how I think of things. I have a personal preference for a diet that happens to be lower than average in total carbs, but not because I think high carb or average carb diets are unhealthy or would be bad for me. Just because of food preferences.
Beyond that, I think of low carb as actively counting and monitoring carbs and I don't try to hit any particular number or really care if I eat more carbs one day, more fat the next. When I log and eat as I like (mainly because for me the meat (or other protein) and vegetables are the essential part of the meals, the starch the extra and for me satisfying even in smaller quantities and not essential to a meal), I happen to come in at 100-150 g, on average. So I'd say I'm not actively low carbing (although like I said I am kind of interested in trying it for a bit, just not so low that I'd be limiting vegetables).
As for what I call my diet, I don't really like the idea of named diets or ways of eating, but if I had to characterize mine I'd just say it was a nutrition-conscious, mostly whole foods based style of eating. I think that's healthy within a wide range of carbs, I just happen to have taste preferences that put me on the lower third (maybe) of that wide range.
My debating about 150 g being low carb (or 140 or whatever) ISN'T because it bothers me if it is, but because people slam the SAD or the MFP default as high carb and that seems inconsistent to me. The SAD is about 50% carb and at 1200 calories 150 g IS 50% carbs. Sure, I think it's better to eat a bit higher cal, for most people, but even at 1600, 50% carbs is only 200 g -- I don't quite get saying that anything from 0-150 are low carb and are basically the same way of eating, but 200=high carb. There is more of a difference in eating under 20 g of carbs (which would be really challenging for me) from 125 g, IMO, than between 150 g and 200 g (and I say that even though I found eating around 200 g to be not for me).
But of course I'm biased by personal experience, and that's that my carbs were probably about 40%-45% when I was gaining weight. I didn't really change the ratio of fats to carbs ever -- I cut both fat and carbs and increased protein some when I decided to lose. So for me it just didn't feel like low carbing; that wasn't the main change, being mindful about some other things was (and dealing with emotional eating, but my emotional eating was mostly fat+carb).
Thanks for the explanation.
You might consider joining the Low Carber Daily. It may help you with ideas or information. Two of the mods are slow carbers: one is slightly above the usual rough 150g carb limit for what is low carb, and the other has been as low as keto but has found it isn't meeting her needs anymore and has moved on to a higher low carb level. Another mod is using LCHF to keto to treat T2D, and another is basically a carnivore.
Like on the main boards, I think the keto'ers tend to be more active and vocal. Many low carbers don't even bother joining the LCD because they feel their carb macro is not unusually low - they need no extra support. Sort of like your experiences.
Anyways, something to consider. Following discussions could sway your opinion to try lower carb one way or the other.
Interesting enough, I used to be a part of the LC group and then was removed once it went private, and I got booted, lol.
@lemurcat12 I believe @nvmomketo is right that glucose needs is what derives why LC is defined at 140g or less. Even so, there is no reason you have to label yourself one diet vs another. I personally eat whatever way I want to eat and never feel a reason to label myself. Restriction type diets do not work for me at all, but if I gravitate towards a particular diet, then I'm good. I do feel some people like the labels as it helps assimilate/connect with other members.
I think part of the labelling comes from associating success with something. You guys feel moderating calories was the cause of your successes. I call myself lchf because it is the reason I am able to maintain a calorie deficit. KWIM?
Plus labelling diets is a faster and easier way to explain your woe. Usually. A few labels like clean or unprocessed don't seem to work that way around here. LOL1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?
I'm neutral on the idea of calling how I eat low carb. One part of why I don't, however, is that I perceive the low carbers at MFP, on average, to be keto-oriented, and to count carbs, and to be extremely low and often the implied suggestion so often, as I read it anyway (and I don't mean from you, but more generally) is that carbs (even vegetables, fruit, other whole foods) are bad because carbs, less is always better, any carbs are bad for health, being close to 0 in sugar is good, even if the sugar is from fruits and veg, etc. That is definitely not how I think of things. I have a personal preference for a diet that happens to be lower than average in total carbs, but not because I think high carb or average carb diets are unhealthy or would be bad for me. Just because of food preferences.
Beyond that, I think of low carb as actively counting and monitoring carbs and I don't try to hit any particular number or really care if I eat more carbs one day, more fat the next. When I log and eat as I like (mainly because for me the meat (or other protein) and vegetables are the essential part of the meals, the starch the extra and for me satisfying even in smaller quantities and not essential to a meal), I happen to come in at 100-150 g, on average. So I'd say I'm not actively low carbing (although like I said I am kind of interested in trying it for a bit, just not so low that I'd be limiting vegetables).
As for what I call my diet, I don't really like the idea of named diets or ways of eating, but if I had to characterize mine I'd just say it was a nutrition-conscious, mostly whole foods based style of eating. I think that's healthy within a wide range of carbs, I just happen to have taste preferences that put me on the lower third (maybe) of that wide range.
My debating about 150 g being low carb (or 140 or whatever) ISN'T because it bothers me if it is, but because people slam the SAD or the MFP default as high carb and that seems inconsistent to me. The SAD is about 50% carb and at 1200 calories 150 g IS 50% carbs. Sure, I think it's better to eat a bit higher cal, for most people, but even at 1600, 50% carbs is only 200 g -- I don't quite get saying that anything from 0-150 are low carb and are basically the same way of eating, but 200=high carb. There is more of a difference in eating under 20 g of carbs (which would be really challenging for me) from 125 g, IMO, than between 150 g and 200 g (and I say that even though I found eating around 200 g to be not for me).
But of course I'm biased by personal experience, and that's that my carbs were probably about 40%-45% when I was gaining weight. I didn't really change the ratio of fats to carbs ever -- I cut both fat and carbs and increased protein some when I decided to lose. So for me it just didn't feel like low carbing; that wasn't the main change, being mindful about some other things was (and dealing with emotional eating, but my emotional eating was mostly fat+carb).
Thanks for the explanation.
You might consider joining the Low Carber Daily. It may help you with ideas or information. Two of the mods are slow carbers: one is slightly above the usual rough 150g carb limit for what is low carb, and the other has been as low as keto but has found it isn't meeting her needs anymore and has moved on to a higher low carb level. Another mod is using LCHF to keto to treat T2D, and another is basically a carnivore.
Like on the main boards, I think the keto'ers tend to be more active and vocal. Many low carbers don't even bother joining the LCD because they feel their carb macro is not unusually low - they need no extra support. Sort of like your experiences.
Anyways, something to consider. Following discussions could sway your opinion to try lower carb one way or the other.
Interesting enough, I used to be a part of the LC group and then was removed once it went private, and I got booted, lol.
@lemurcat12 I believe @nvmomketo is right that glucose needs is what derives why LC is defined at 140g or less. Even so, there is no reason you have to label yourself one diet vs another. I personally eat whatever way I want to eat and never feel a reason to label myself. Restriction type diets do not work for me at all, but if I gravitate towards a particular diet, then I'm good. I do feel some people like the labels as it helps assimilate/connect with other members.
I think part of the labelling comes from associating success with something. You guys feel moderating calories was the cause of your successes. I call myself lchf because it is the reason I am able to maintain a calorie deficit. KWIM?
This is pretty insightful. When someone asks me how I lose/lost, I say I cut calories, ate more mindfully, increased activity, stopped snacking, because to ME those are the things I did that make a difference. I do "eat clean" (ugh, that term) as it is often defined around here -- mostly eating whole foods, not entirely -- but I did that before I lost and while gaining too, so associating that with how I lost weight makes no sense.
Similarly, since my reduction in carbs is more related to reducing calories (as I cut fat too) and eating more mindfully (because I just find some common sources of carbs not worth the calories for me, as I'm picky about bread, don't care about rice, hate cold cereal, don't add sugar to things anyway), I don't think of myself as doing low carb (although I often am low carbing under a lot of definitions). I recall that at one point someone I work with saw me remove the bread from a sandwich at a work lunch to get at the turkey (where they brought in food and there was nothing I really wanted -- I ate the turkey, some salad, and fruit), and insisted after that that I was low carbing, because no bread. I said "but I ate a bunch of fruit," but it didn't matter, and it's that kind of thing that perhaps makes me resist the label more than I realized I was.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm curious - you don't seem to like the idea of labeling your diet as low carb. Is there a dietary label you would give or apply your woe?
I'm neutral on the idea of calling how I eat low carb. One part of why I don't, however, is that I perceive the low carbers at MFP, on average, to be keto-oriented, and to count carbs, and to be extremely low and often the implied suggestion so often, as I read it anyway (and I don't mean from you, but more generally) is that carbs (even vegetables, fruit, other whole foods) are bad because carbs, less is always better, any carbs are bad for health, being close to 0 in sugar is good, even if the sugar is from fruits and veg, etc. That is definitely not how I think of things. I have a personal preference for a diet that happens to be lower than average in total carbs, but not because I think high carb or average carb diets are unhealthy or would be bad for me. Just because of food preferences.
Beyond that, I think of low carb as actively counting and monitoring carbs and I don't try to hit any particular number or really care if I eat more carbs one day, more fat the next. When I log and eat as I like (mainly because for me the meat (or other protein) and vegetables are the essential part of the meals, the starch the extra and for me satisfying even in smaller quantities and not essential to a meal), I happen to come in at 100-150 g, on average. So I'd say I'm not actively low carbing (although like I said I am kind of interested in trying it for a bit, just not so low that I'd be limiting vegetables).
As for what I call my diet, I don't really like the idea of named diets or ways of eating, but if I had to characterize mine I'd just say it was a nutrition-conscious, mostly whole foods based style of eating. I think that's healthy within a wide range of carbs, I just happen to have taste preferences that put me on the lower third (maybe) of that wide range.
My debating about 150 g being low carb (or 140 or whatever) ISN'T because it bothers me if it is, but because people slam the SAD or the MFP default as high carb and that seems inconsistent to me. The SAD is about 50% carb and at 1200 calories 150 g IS 50% carbs. Sure, I think it's better to eat a bit higher cal, for most people, but even at 1600, 50% carbs is only 200 g -- I don't quite get saying that anything from 0-150 are low carb and are basically the same way of eating, but 200=high carb. There is more of a difference in eating under 20 g of carbs (which would be really challenging for me) from 125 g, IMO, than between 150 g and 200 g (and I say that even though I found eating around 200 g to be not for me).
But of course I'm biased by personal experience, and that's that my carbs were probably about 40%-45% when I was gaining weight. I didn't really change the ratio of fats to carbs ever -- I cut both fat and carbs and increased protein some when I decided to lose. So for me it just didn't feel like low carbing; that wasn't the main change, being mindful about some other things was (and dealing with emotional eating, but my emotional eating was mostly fat+carb).
Thanks for the explanation.
You might consider joining the Low Carber Daily. It may help you with ideas or information. Two of the mods are slow carbers: one is slightly above the usual rough 150g carb limit for what is low carb, and the other has been as low as keto but has found it isn't meeting her needs anymore and has moved on to a higher low carb level. Another mod is using LCHF to keto to treat T2D, and another is basically a carnivore.
Like on the main boards, I think the keto'ers tend to be more active and vocal. Many low carbers don't even bother joining the LCD because they feel their carb macro is not unusually low - they need no extra support. Sort of like your experiences.
Anyways, something to consider. Following discussions could sway your opinion to try lower carb one way or the other.
Interesting enough, I used to be a part of the LC group and then was removed once it went private, and I got booted, lol.
@lemurcat12 I believe @nvmomketo is right that glucose needs is what derives why LC is defined at 140g or less. Even so, there is no reason you have to label yourself one diet vs another. I personally eat whatever way I want to eat and never feel a reason to label myself. Restriction type diets do not work for me at all, but if I gravitate towards a particular diet, then I'm good. I do feel some people like the labels as it helps assimilate/connect with other members.
I think part of the labelling comes from associating success with something. You guys feel moderating calories was the cause of your successes. I call myself lchf because it is the reason I am able to maintain a calorie deficit. KWIM?
Plus labelling diets is a faster and easier way to explain your woe. Usually. A few labels like clean or unprocessed don't seem to work that way around here. LOL
When people asked me how i lost weight, I just told them calorie counting and exercise. I don't even get into macro discussion unless they pull out that crap about I should eat one way or another.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions