Questions about LCHF

AlabasterVerve

lemurcat12 wrote: »

crazyycatlady1 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

fatblatta wrote: »

People will come on here and knock it and say CICO is the only thing that matters. If you are a heavy person who has lost weight time and time again LCHF is very sustainable and may work long term. Where weighing your food and counting calories trying to stay low is not very enjoyable. As soon as you stop that you'll gain it all back plus some. That is certainly part of it and it matters.

I think you misunderstand.

Re the first sentence quoted:

When people say CICO is what matters for weight loss, they are not knocking keto or low carb diets. CICO is what matters for weight loss, and is why keto or other low carb diets work when they do, it is why raw vegan diets work when they do, why South Beach or paleo or even the (ugh) so called Military Diet work when they do. CICO is not some kind of diet, but only a statement that calorie balance is what determines weight loss. Not uncommonly, someone shows up and claims that their preferred diet (quite often but not only keto, it happens with plenty of others) is magic and works regardless of CICO. Usually this is someone new to keto (or whatever diet it is), although some of the various gurus will make such claims, of course, as it is part of the marketing. Or they will say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to lose eating carbs even if you eat at a deficit (I think there's a thread where such claims were made today). This is, of course, different from claiming that you individually find it hard to meet a reasonable calorie goal with carbs too high, since you are hungrier or tend to overeat. I think that's true for lots of people, and that as a result of that and other things low carb can be an excellent choice for someone.

Re the second sentence quoted: It is for many, but so are other ways of eating, for many.

Re the third and fourth sentences quoted:

Counting calories and keto are not two different things. Some count and do keto, some don't count and don't do keto. I lost weight in the past not counting and have been maintaining my weight loss this time not counting. I'm planning on trying low carb (maybe keto -- I need to figure how how many carbs that would be for me), and I will be counting, because part of it is going to be getting a handle on my TDEE again and so long as I am counting carbs and protein, why not? Also, I found counting calories and "staying low" (at a deficit -- and the calories you need to eat likely won't differ much) perfectly enjoyable when I did it. I also did not gain it back when I stopped -- why would I.

I would love it if you would respond, as I am really interested in a conversation here, if possible, not just making points and talking only to those I am in agreement with.

I hope you share your experience if you do decide to do this-very curious if you find it better/worse than what you do now, ( I think we eat pretty similar right now).

I will. Part of why I want to do it is I think doing an experiment will be motivating in and of itself and get me interested in logging again. But I am also curious if I will feel any different. I seem to feel totally fine going lower in carbs for a period of time compared to some others, so could be I end up enjoying it.

One thing I've noticed is that even though fat doesn't fill me up -- I am fine with a breakfast that is extremely low fat if it has some protein and fiber, a high fat, low fiber breakfast will usually result in me being hungry sooner, full fat dairy or higher fat meat requires more calories for the same satiety (basically like psulemon said) -- I still find that when my overall diet is somewhat higher fat (35% or more) I tend to feel happier overall and am less likely to want to overeat for reasons that seem to me to have nothing to do with hunger (I will not care that my assistant brought in homemade cupcakes if it wasn't on my plan vs. thinking about them a lot).

That's my experience with fat as well. It doesn't fill me up - meat and vegetables do - but the fat (in the absence of significant amounts of carbohydrate) is what satiates/normalizes my appetite so I'm not constantly thinking about food and obsessing on when and what I can eat next. My diet is probably around 50% or 60% fat most days.

psuLemon

lemurcat12 wrote: »

fatblatta wrote: »

People will come on here and knock it and say CICO is the only thing that matters. If you are a heavy person who has lost weight time and time again LCHF is very sustainable and may work long term. Where weighing your food and counting calories trying to stay low is not very enjoyable. As soon as you stop that you'll gain it all back plus some. That is certainly part of it and it matters.

I think you misunderstand.

Re the first sentence quoted:

When people say CICO is what matters for weight loss, they are not knocking keto or low carb diets. CICO is what matters for weight loss, and is why keto or other low carb diets work when they do, it is why raw vegan diets work when they do, why South Beach or paleo or even the (ugh) so called Military Diet work when they do. CICO is not some kind of diet, but only a statement that calorie balance is what determines weight loss. Not uncommonly, someone shows up and claims that their preferred diet (quite often but not only keto, it happens with plenty of others) is magic and works regardless of CICO. Usually this is someone new to keto (or whatever diet it is), although some of the various gurus will make such claims, of course, as it is part of the marketing. Or they will say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to lose eating carbs even if you eat at a deficit (I think there's a thread where such claims were made today). This is, of course, different from claiming that you individually find it hard to meet a reasonable calorie goal with carbs too high, since you are hungrier or tend to overeat. I think that's true for lots of people, and that as a result of that and other things low carb can be an excellent choice for someone.

Re the second sentence quoted: It is for many, but so are other ways of eating, for many.

Re the third and fourth sentences quoted:

Counting calories and keto are not two different things. Some count and do keto, some don't count and don't do keto. I lost weight in the past not counting and have been maintaining my weight loss this time not counting. I'm planning on trying low carb (maybe keto -- I need to figure how how many carbs that would be for me), and I will be counting, because part of it is going to be getting a handle on my TDEE again and so long as I am counting carbs and protein, why not? Also, I found counting calories and "staying low" (at a deficit -- and the calories you need to eat likely won't differ much) perfectly enjoyable when I did it. I also did not gain it back when I stopped -- why would I.

I would love it if you would respond, as I am really interested in a conversation here, if possible, not just making points and talking only to those I am in agreement with.

When I move to maintenance, I may try keto, just to see if there is any increase in satiety when ketones are prevalent. And I have a feeling, I will need all 3000 calories to keep me full.

lemurcat12

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

crazyycatlady1 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

fatblatta wrote: »

People will come on here and knock it and say CICO is the only thing that matters. If you are a heavy person who has lost weight time and time again LCHF is very sustainable and may work long term. Where weighing your food and counting calories trying to stay low is not very enjoyable. As soon as you stop that you'll gain it all back plus some. That is certainly part of it and it matters.

I think you misunderstand.

Re the first sentence quoted:

When people say CICO is what matters for weight loss, they are not knocking keto or low carb diets. CICO is what matters for weight loss, and is why keto or other low carb diets work when they do, it is why raw vegan diets work when they do, why South Beach or paleo or even the (ugh) so called Military Diet work when they do. CICO is not some kind of diet, but only a statement that calorie balance is what determines weight loss. Not uncommonly, someone shows up and claims that their preferred diet (quite often but not only keto, it happens with plenty of others) is magic and works regardless of CICO. Usually this is someone new to keto (or whatever diet it is), although some of the various gurus will make such claims, of course, as it is part of the marketing. Or they will say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to lose eating carbs even if you eat at a deficit (I think there's a thread where such claims were made today). This is, of course, different from claiming that you individually find it hard to meet a reasonable calorie goal with carbs too high, since you are hungrier or tend to overeat. I think that's true for lots of people, and that as a result of that and other things low carb can be an excellent choice for someone.

Re the second sentence quoted: It is for many, but so are other ways of eating, for many.

Re the third and fourth sentences quoted:

Counting calories and keto are not two different things. Some count and do keto, some don't count and don't do keto. I lost weight in the past not counting and have been maintaining my weight loss this time not counting. I'm planning on trying low carb (maybe keto -- I need to figure how how many carbs that would be for me), and I will be counting, because part of it is going to be getting a handle on my TDEE again and so long as I am counting carbs and protein, why not? Also, I found counting calories and "staying low" (at a deficit -- and the calories you need to eat likely won't differ much) perfectly enjoyable when I did it. I also did not gain it back when I stopped -- why would I.

I would love it if you would respond, as I am really interested in a conversation here, if possible, not just making points and talking only to those I am in agreement with.

I hope you share your experience if you do decide to do this-very curious if you find it better/worse than what you do now, ( I think we eat pretty similar right now).

I will. Part of why I want to do it is I think doing an experiment will be motivating in and of itself and get me interested in logging again. But I am also curious if I will feel any different. I seem to feel totally fine going lower in carbs for a period of time compared to some others, so could be I end up enjoying it.

One thing I've noticed is that even though fat doesn't fill me up -- I am fine with a breakfast that is extremely low fat if it has some protein and fiber, a high fat, low fiber breakfast will usually result in me being hungry sooner, full fat dairy or higher fat meat requires more calories for the same satiety (basically like psulemon said) -- I still find that when my overall diet is somewhat higher fat (35% or more) I tend to feel happier overall and am less likely to want to overeat for reasons that seem to me to have nothing to do with hunger (I will not care that my assistant brought in homemade cupcakes if it wasn't on my plan vs. thinking about them a lot).

That's my experience with fat as well. It doesn't fill me up - meat and vegetables do - but the fat (in the absence of significant amounts of carbohydrate) is what satiates/normalizes my appetite so I'm not constantly thinking about food and obsessing on when and what I can eat next. My diet is probably around 50% or 60% fat most days.

That's good to know.