Low calories or low carbs..what worked better for you?
Replies
-
For me I chose to reduce my calories to a managable level by doing low carb. It is not "low calorie" but the correct calorie amount I should be eating. I have been in maitenance since May and continue to eat the same way. YMMV.
3 -
I lost my excess weight via a calorie deficit. I've maintained my weight for 3 years via eating the proper amount of calories for my level of activity. All the while it has been via varying levels of low carbohydrate intake. That is what works for me. YMMV.4
-
Trying a moderate-carb diet (between 60-80 grams per day) for 3 weeks helped me figure out where I was "wasting" calories. As someone who eats a mostly plant-based diet, it wasn't sustainable for me. But I now have a much better understanding of some pitfalls I can easily avoid and feel better moving forward with my goals.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »NOT eating aka fasting is keto. It's also known as starvation. Which is also a calorie restriction in the extreme sense..
This says "fasting is keto". You did say that. And that is what I responded to as false information.
I will take the fact that you now say you didn't make that claim that you must have mistyped and didn't mean it as it read.
I'm not keto either. I love my dried fruit too much for that. I do think it works great for some though. I personally feel best at around 100g net carbs and my only food eliminations are based around allergies. It's important that everyone find what works for them. And again, I am just bothered by all of the and keto posts about how it eliminates veggies 100% or you have to starve yourself on that plan. Without accurate info the people it could work for might not find it.
Just a quick observation. I find that you mention the spreading of misinformation about what constitutes Keto interesting. Not that this does not happen, but let's get real here; can you name me another subset of the dieting and fitness world that routinely spews more rank nonsense than the Keto crowd? I can't think of any offhand. This makes it far more difficult for many people to take them seriously, and even more difficult to have much pity for people mischaracterizing their plans.
The HCLF vegans/Raw til 4 people often give the keto crowd a run for their money in this regard.
You have a point there.0 -
yeah, well, a lot of people misuse the low carb theory, it isn't carte blanche to pig out on thousands of calories of mayo and butter; the true answer probably sits somewhere in the middle, being cautious with starchy carby foods and ensuring you don't overdo the calories or consider anything a "free food". Not a very exciting answer I suppose, but diet variety and moderation is probably key.3
-
rheddmobile wrote: »As a diabetic I can only handle about 45g of carbs at a meal. However, in practice I've found that I have fewer cravings if I avoid added sugars and white bread, which seem to knock my blood sugar around more than other foods, even when eaten as part of a meal. Different diabetics respond to the same foods differently - some can't handle fruit and potatoes, which are no problem for me.
Since two diabetics will have completely unique blood glucose responses to the same exact food, it seems likely that healthy people - who haven't been studied nearly as much - would vary in which foods made them feel cravings as well. If restricting carbs is easy for you and works to help you keep yourself in a deficit then do that - if it seems unreasonably difficult, don't do it.
By the way, AnvilHead is absolutely right that protein and fat also trigger a rise in insulin levels, although they don't raise blood glucose levels in the same way carbs do.
Fat does not actually cause insulin release. Protein does - usually about half as much as carbs can.1 -
I've been off MFP for over a year and this debate is STILL going on. I think it'll go on until the end of time. At least it gives an amusing read during down times at work.
I'm diabetic. I have to eat low carb in order to control it (Dr.'s advice and I think I'll take his advice over any of ya'lls). I find eating in a keto type fashion the best for my blood sugar and insulin issues. Yes, it's CICO that determines weight loss. No matter which way you eat you have to have the equation be less in more out if you want to lose weight.
That being said - I don't get the animosity some people have against low carb diets. And in before you all say - we're just pointing out that it's CICO. Yeah, some of you do, but most of you step on this sanctimonious platform and be super judgmental to strangers on the net about their personal food choices. I think most people who come to MFP are struggling with weight loss. Where is everyone's empathy? We are mostly in this together and should be HAPPY that people are doing whatever works for them to get healthy.
I expect this to be an unpopular opinion and that's fine. To clarify in before things get out of context:
CI<CO is how you lose weight. I am not complaining about posts that correct misconceptions of that.
Why do some people get so testy about how OTHER people choose to do that?10 -
I honestly dont know either. There are plenty of level headed keto folks hanging around attempting to squash BS. But there you have it.
I know for me I did an experiment with pasta. I put cooked pasta with nothing on it in my mouth and got a big zero for flavor. It was a big lightbulb moment for ME. The pasta was just a carrier for the good stuff I liked. I took that and expanded self experimentation further and ended up where I am and loving the way I eat. People can rant on about it all they want I guess. Bottom line is find what keeps you full, happy and healthy and don't let folks steal your sunshine.6 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »low carb doesnt = weight loss....so if you mean to lose weight....calorie deficit
I eat very high carb and lose fine. Never understood keto, fruits and vegetables are carbs and very good for you lol
Keto doesn't eliminate veggies and all fruit FYI
good majority of them
It's actually a much more balanced way of eating than most people realize. It isn't for me personally but I have several people close to me who have eaten this way for years and are incredibly healthy eating a variety of foods.
There is little fruit but they eat their veggies daily
https://ketodietapp.com/Blog/post/2015/01/03/Keto-Diet-Food-List-What-to-Eat-and-Avoid
I agree that keto need not eliminate veg (it's tough to fit in any fruit and when I was doing it I found I'd have to have made a tradeoff with veg or nuts to fit in any fruit but avocado, which I was not willing to do).
However, I also maintain that most people, certainly if not sedentary, can be in ketosis at under 50 g net (which is consistent with the more credible sources I've read, and my own experiences). When I started I aimed for 50 g total, and never made it (I was more like 35 g net, 60 g total), and was in ketosis, and this allowed for a decent amount of vegetables, plus some nuts and occasional dairy. BUT, I also see all the time this notion that you should be under 20 g (sometimes total, not net) and that fewer carbs are always better, so I think the way keto is being promoted on some websites or forums around the internet DOES make it hard to fit in more than a small amount of vegetables, and this seems to be combined with the idea that veg are not important.
Agree one cannot generalize about that, and many who do keto see it as basing meals around protein and vegetables with the fat being from the protein, from the way the veg is cooked, and then various accents and so on (which adds up pretty easily). I do worry/feel bothered by how often I see keto promoted as such a super low, veg don't matter, lower is always better way of eating, however. There was a challenge I considered joining here where eating under 50 g (total, not net) was required and I said I couldn't do that without cutting veg and got basically told that I should, and that some were even doing under 20, which was better. I will add that this is not the message I've gotten from the main low carb forum, which is more diverse and has people doing a bunch of different things and not criticizing each other.5 -
First, I think the majority of the animosity is towards people who say things like "CICO doesn't work for me so I do Keto".
Secondly, I think there are a lot of people who come here and say, "Gosh I'm really suffering with this Keto diet" I think people probably go overboard in making it clear that there is no magic recipe for the Keto diet. As you said, it's a ways to a means and for some people it can be a sustainable way to maintain a deficit. For others it is unsustainable.
3 -
I could be wrong but I think the "20 grams or less" figure is stated because it's pretty much a guarantee that if you eat that or less you will be in ketosis. Since it's such an individual thing and a lot of keto folk are dealing with IR and diabetes its become "the" number. Testing for it to find your personal sweet spot level is pretty expensive so it's a way to "be sure" so to speak.
I've been lucky enough to be able to figure out just from how my body feels if I am in or out and I can usually be ok with 35g NET as long as that was veggies and fruits.2 -
0
-
My doctor put me on low carb due to high triglycerides. He told me to eat fewer than 100g a day. Keto wasn't a good fit for me, but I wanted to do more than the doc said so I'm in between - 50-60g a day. In addition, I track my calories so I stay below both my carb goal and my calorie goal for the day.
In 44 days my blood pressure has gone down, I have lost 15 lbs, and I feel much better.7 -
The reason this continues to be an issue:
1) The medical community is, in general, moronic they run with a little bit of data and wont admit they don't fully understand it - eggs good, eggs the devil, eggs superfood, eggs bad
2) Non- medical community are, in general, moronic they take a little bit of data and stretch it so it no longer resembles the original data- shakeweight, electric ab simulator
Combine those and you have:
1) You can find a report/study where a Dr says carbs are the root of all evil or a Dr says lack of carbs are the root of all evil
2) Non medical person pointing to some report by a doctor to support their "medical based" diet, scheme, hair-brained idea
The rest of us are left wondering what the heck to believe or listen to.
Great. So Calories In vs Calories Out rules all. But wait a minute...what about all of the studies/reports that show giving the same calories and same exercise programs to a study population caused wildly different weight gain and loss? Oh drat!
Could the answer be that each individual is...egads...and individual? Could that explain why my wife continues to eat like a growing high school boy, doesn't exercise, and still wears a size 2. Meanwhile I have to fight off gaining a pound if I breath in the smell of a donut?
I doubt anyone would argue against the following - If we ran our own study by having each person who read this thread to begin a specific weight training program and we would measure gained strength and mass in 2 months we would end up with wildly different results. Each person do a 1 arm bicep curl with 20 lbs record how many you can do and bicep circumference, when you can do 20 reps add 2 lbs. Rinse and repeat. At the end of 2 months record how much you are lifting, how many reps, and bicep circumference. It makes perfect sense that we might have "clusters" where people were close in gains but we would certain have some people who gained massive strength, others not much, some who gained lots of mass, others who didn't and every mix in between. We easily acknowledge that our own bodies have individual control over how it will adapt. And no, calorie restriction and diet would not be an issue as it could easily be accounted for by the number of people in the study.
It seems with weight we don't want to accept that our own bodies sometimes fight us and make it harder. This doesn't mean we can't ultimately win, it just means that each might have to do something a little differently to get to the end. For you it might be focusing on carbs. For you it might be skipping junk food and adding fresh fruit. You it might be focusing only on smaller portions. You it might be adding a cheat day.
Whatever makes you motivated to get to where you want to be is the plan that works.11 -
NOT eating aka fasting is keto. It's also known as starvation. Which is also a calorie restriction in the extreme sense..
This says "fasting is keto". You did say that. And that is what I responded to as false information.
I will take the fact that you now say you didn't make that claim that you must have mistyped and didn't mean it as it read.
I'm not keto either. I love my dried fruit too much for that. I do think it works great for some though. I personally feel best at around 100g net carbs and my only food eliminations are based around allergies. It's important that everyone find what works for them. And again, I am just bothered by all of the and keto posts about how it eliminates veggies 100% or you have to starve yourself on that plan. Without accurate info the people it could work for might not find it.
There seems to be a miscommunication or an error in semantics, which is now a logic problem, not a dietary one.
- Fasting (an extended period of no caloric intake) is indeed ketogenic (produces ketones). That statement is true.
- "Ketogenesis is indeed fasting." That statement is not true.
Get it?
If I were to say:
- "SCoil123 is a MFP user." That is true.
- "All MFP users are SCoil123" is a false statement.
The rest of it, we're in agreement. Anyone that needs purports eliminating an entire macro, or food entirely, is optimal for overall health is missing the forest for the trees. I eat low carb/keto most of the time simply out of food preference and glucose management, but I adhere to the foundation of nutrition science....Keto dieters can hit their daily intake of calories and if they're at a deficit, they will lose body fat. If they eat at maintenance, their net energy stores are in balance. If they eat at a surplus, they will store energy in the form of fat...
Which is 100% no different from what happens with any macro combination one chooses to subsist upon.
And exactly my point with it. Keto isn't magic.3 -
Need to know results from people who tried them.
For weight loss.....both have worked because both reduced my calories. It's always about calories.
But, low carb gave me zero tools.....nothing for maintenance because I didn't plan on eating that way at goal.
Find a strategy that works well for weight loss AND weight maintenance. Far too many people take maintenance for grated. That too takes work.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
I do both. I restrict my carbs to 50-75 per day because I'm pre-diabetic. I use CICO for weight loss.1
-
I personally found I didn't need to watch my carbs just my calories and make sure I hit my protein goals, protein helps for satiety and retaining muscle but carbs aren't the enemy (even the odd processed carb snack/meal if it fits in my cals although to tell the truth complex carbs, good fats and protein do keep me fuller longer so I understand why people try to cut out refined carbs)
At the end of the day do what works for you, if you find you are losing on high protein low carbs (although remember you'll get an initial water loss which isn't fat loss that people enjoy when they first do keto and think "woo immediate results!") do it. But if like me it's too restrictive and knackers your digestion/breathe/energy levels just restrict cals personally I find it's sooooo much easier and you can still try to do high protein. 4 -
I have used both methods. I found it hard to hit my calorie intake. I was either way under or way over. Also, I was not able to concentrate on macros while trying to hit my calorie count. If I didn't take in enough calories over a period of time, the weight came back when I started to gain calories again.
I have been counting carbs and watching my macros now and have seen much better results. A low-carb diet equals your body regulating itself and burning what it should/needs to stay balanced.
If I had to vote, I would say low carb.8 -
Great. So Calories In vs Calories Out rules all. But wait a minute...what about all of the studies/reports that show giving the same calories and same exercise programs to a study population caused wildly different weight gain and loss? Oh drat!
Please post a link to at least one of these studies. I'm not trolling or trying to lure you into anything, I honestly have not heard of experiments that gave a group of people exactly the same food.
3 -
Carbs all day, better fuel for endurance3
-
chanderson817 wrote: »I have used both methods. I found it hard to hit my calorie intake. I was either way under or way over. Also, I was not able to concentrate on macros while trying to hit my calorie count. If I didn't take in enough calories over a period of time, the weight came back when I started to gain calories again.
I have been counting carbs and watching my macros now and have seen much better results. A low-carb diet equals your body regulating itself and burning what it should/needs to stay balanced.
If I had to vote, I would say low carb.
In your first example, you weren't carefully tracking macros, and therefore it didn't work. In the second, you tracked them carefully, and therefore it worked.
I think regardless of carbs, you could have seen results because you carefully tracked them.
If anything, being low carb helped you be mindful of what macros are, but it's more education and mindfulness that allowed success. Either way, the good thing is that you're now aware that macros are where calories are calculated from, and eating less of one (carbs) led to a calorie deficit.1 -
Lowering my calories by lowering my carbs, and a little bit lowering fat.3
-
If you have no carbs and your calories are below maintenance you will lose weight
If you have no carbs and your calories are at maintenance your weight will stay the same
If you have no carbs and calories are above maintenance you will gain weight
If you eat all carbs and your calories are below maintenance you will lose weight
If you eat all carbs and your calories are at maintenance your weight will stay the same
If you eat all carbs and your calories are above maintenance you will gain weight
There are all types of diet methodologies and they all have their pros and cons. My advice would be to research and experiment to find the one that works best for you.4 -
If you eat "all carbs" long enough, you will rapidly lose weight due to decomposition.emailmehere1122 wrote: »If you have no carbs and your calories are below maintenance you will lose weight
If you have no carbs and your calories are at maintenance your weight will stay the same
If you have no carbs and calories are above maintenance you will gain weight
If you eat all carbs and your calories are below maintenance you will lose weight
If you eat all carbs and your calories are at maintenance your weight will stay the same
If you eat all carbs and your calories are above maintenance you will gain weight
There are all types of diet methodologies and they all have their pros and cons. My advice would be to research and experiment to find the one that works best for you.3 -
Thx everybody for responding0
-
0
-
emailmehere1122 wrote: »
lol I didn't say that you were0 -
I get about 50% of my calories from carbs but not starches. Mostly all fruit and vegetables. I love lettuce, tomato, and zucchini1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions