Low carb or low calorie.. advice please
nchase3
Posts: 7 Member
Any ideas on which is the best option
0
Replies
-
Are you wanting to lose weight? If yes, then you must eat fewer calories than you take in. Low carb is only one of many ways to achieve a calorie deficit. You can gain weight eating nothing but carbs.
If you have a health issue with carb metabolism, such as diabetes or PCOS, then low carb may help your health issue. It's not necessary for other people.5 -
I want to loose a stone...its just confusing because low carb is higher than the calories mfp says I'm allowed..0
-
The low carb recommendation is baloney. Ignore it, it's a fad diet which does not work unless you also follow the calorie recommendations.
How many calories is MFP giving you? Most people input a 2 lb / wk loss, which is too aggressive for someone who only needs to lose a stone. Try 1 lb / wk and see if that works better for you. I know everyone wants to lose weight quickly, but unless you want to regain as fast as you lose it, you need to make permanent changes to the way you look at food.5 -
It's giving me 1200 I'm 5ft3 and 149lb
To be honest I'd be happy at 140, I wouldn't say I'm overweight as such so yea I'll go with 1lb a week
Thank you3 -
It's tough being petite, you don't get allotted many calories. If you can find some cardio exercise you enjoy, you can earn a few more calories which makes it easier. Good luck!0
-
Calories counting > Carb counting for weight loss.
If I do have a lot of carbs, I do feel a bit bloated, but I'm okay overall weight-wise if I don't go over on my calories. It'll pass.
< 5'2"3 -
1200 calories is rock bottom and without exercise, I assume? Take a walk and earn a few more calories!
<5'1"2 -
-
Do low carb if you really like eating that way. I lost weight easily with Atkins, but couldn't keep it off because I really didn't like eating mostly meat and eggs. I like fruit, grain, sugar too much for that to be sustainable long term.
The one advantage of low carb is you tend to drop weight quickly in the beginning, which can be motivating. It is water weight and will come back if you eat carbs. But if you are planning to eat low carb for a while, it can help get you started.3 -
QFT.3 -
yeah- you could eat more if you burned some calories- even just walking burns about 100 calories per mile-3 miles and you could eat 1500 cal. (which is very reasonable). I watch carbs, but definitely eat all kinds of stuff- prob about 100-150 net grams a day. A really low carb diet is way too limiting for me. But in the end, it's all about a calorie deficit-no mater how you choose to eat.0
-
A calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. Low carb is a tool you can use for that or to address health concerns.3
-
A calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. Low carb is a tool you can use for that or to address health concerns.
Low fat and high fiber eating is also a means of addressing health concerns. So is eating at a calorie deficit. So is eating a wide variety of nutritious foods. So is limiting saturated fat. So is limiting sodium. So is limiting cholesterol.
It all depends on your particular health concerns, so general "health concerns" claims made about any specific diet and meant to be applied in a broad sense are rather silly.
For most people, diets aren't medical prescriptions, even if there are some limits placed upon them by medical conditions.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »A calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. Low carb is a tool you can use for that or to address health concerns.
Low fat and high fiber eating is also a means of addressing health concerns. So is eating at a calorie deficit. So is eating a wide variety of nutritious foods. So is limiting saturated fat. So is limiting sodium. So is limiting cholesterol.
It all depends on your particular health concerns, so general "health concerns" claims made about any specific diet and meant to be applied in a broad sense are rather silly.
For most people, diets aren't medical prescriptions, even if there are some limits placed upon them by medical conditions.
Drives me batty when there's some sort of implied assumption everyone has health issues and everyone can address them with a variety of low carb approaches.
OP, just eat whatever way makes this whole thing easiest for you, there's no weight loss/fat loss advantage with one way of eating over another. Lower you goal to 0.5lb and move around a bit to get more to eat.7 -
I’m 4’11” 105 right now. I don’t have much to lose, but it’s for my job, so I have to look really fit and slender. I do low calorie volume eating most days, and I go off a weekly, rather than daily, calorie count (otherwise I’d never get a decent meal out!). It took me time to develop a taste for the kinds of foods I eat (lots of veggies, lettuce wraps with tabouli, tofu, fruit/veggie whole juice), but it works for me and it’s usually pretty high carb, but mostly from fruits and veggies (and wine in my case).0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »A calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. Low carb is a tool you can use for that or to address health concerns.
Low fat and high fiber eating is also a means of addressing health concerns. So is eating at a calorie deficit. So is eating a wide variety of nutritious foods. So is limiting saturated fat. So is limiting sodium. So is limiting cholesterol.
It all depends on your particular health concerns, so general "health concerns" claims made about any specific diet and meant to be applied in a broad sense are rather silly.
For most people, diets aren't medical prescriptions, even if there are some limits placed upon them by medical conditions.
What drives me batty when I mention LCHF, it is nit-picked at, repeatedly in various threads.
I mean, really? Saying Low carb is tool you can use to meet a calorie deficit or to address health concerns is wrong? I KNOW it depends on the health issue and I am sure that the vast majority of people would realize that too. I did not say ALL health concerns. I said people can use it to address health concerns... or should I now be concerned that people will assume I meant that eating LCHF will address someone else's health concern? Let's give people some credit! I think people know LCHF is not magic.
I don't think we need to mention every other diet under the sun that can address a health issue in a "Low Carb or Low Calorie?" thread... Although I guess mentioning limiting food can help some issues would fit here.
ETA Sorry OP. I let some MFP history amd my flu crankiness shine through there. But if my original comment did confuse you, I'm sorry.
10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »A calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. Low carb is a tool you can use for that or to address health concerns.
Low fat and high fiber eating is also a means of addressing health concerns. So is eating at a calorie deficit. So is eating a wide variety of nutritious foods. So is limiting saturated fat. So is limiting sodium. So is limiting cholesterol.
It all depends on your particular health concerns, so general "health concerns" claims made about any specific diet and meant to be applied in a broad sense are rather silly.
For most people, diets aren't medical prescriptions, even if there are some limits placed upon them by medical conditions.
What drives me batty when I mention LCHF, it is nit-picked at, repeatedly in various threads.
I mean, really? Saying Low carb is tool you can use to meet a calorie deficit or to address health concerns is wrong? I KNOW it depends on the health issue and I am sure that the vast majority of people would realize that too. I did not say ALL health concerns. I said people can use it to address health concerns... or should I now be concerned that people will assume I meant that eating LCHF will address someone else's health concern? Let's give people some credit! I think people know LCHF is not magic.
I don't think we need to mention every other diet under the sun that can address a health issue in a "Low Carb or Low Calorie?" thread... Although I guess mentioning limiting food can help some issues would fit here.
ETA Sorry OP. I let some MFP history amd my flu crankiness shine through there. But if my original comment did confuse you, I'm sorry.
The thing is, you never see a moderate way of eating touted as doing all sorts of magical things. Non-ethical vegans do. Regular ethical vegans don't, vegetarians don't, higher carb moderators don't. That's what I take issue with.3 -
Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.35
-
VintageFeline wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »A calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. Low carb is a tool you can use for that or to address health concerns.
Low fat and high fiber eating is also a means of addressing health concerns. So is eating at a calorie deficit. So is eating a wide variety of nutritious foods. So is limiting saturated fat. So is limiting sodium. So is limiting cholesterol.
It all depends on your particular health concerns, so general "health concerns" claims made about any specific diet and meant to be applied in a broad sense are rather silly.
For most people, diets aren't medical prescriptions, even if there are some limits placed upon them by medical conditions.
What drives me batty when I mention LCHF, it is nit-picked at, repeatedly in various threads.
I mean, really? Saying Low carb is tool you can use to meet a calorie deficit or to address health concerns is wrong? I KNOW it depends on the health issue and I am sure that the vast majority of people would realize that too. I did not say ALL health concerns. I said people can use it to address health concerns... or should I now be concerned that people will assume I meant that eating LCHF will address someone else's health concern? Let's give people some credit! I think people know LCHF is not magic.
I don't think we need to mention every other diet under the sun that can address a health issue in a "Low Carb or Low Calorie?" thread... Although I guess mentioning limiting food can help some issues would fit here.
ETA Sorry OP. I let some MFP history amd my flu crankiness shine through there. But if my original comment did confuse you, I'm sorry.
The thing is, you never see a moderate way of eating touted as doing all sorts of magical things. Non-ethical vegans do. Regular ethical vegans don't, vegetarians don't, higher carb moderators don't. That's what I take issue with.
Actually I usually see that post oten immediatly after someone claims a health benefit from a different diet. Stuff like:
LCHF helped reverse my T2d - So would losing weight, adding fibre and exercising...
Veganism did x,y,z - So does eating a healthy steak once in a while...
Following a paleo diet helped wih my autoimmune disease - So would eating a healthy well balanced diet...
I see it enough. More than enough. But if it is possibly a helpful, healthful diet, say it. Why not?
2 -
hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
Do you have a link to one of these studies that has debunked "100 times over" that calories aren't the issue?10 -
hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
Your last sentence is completely false. Fats and proteins also cause an insulin response. In fact, in studies, some proteins were found to produce a stronger insulin response than carbs. Fats and proteins do not directly raise blood glucose levels as carbs do, but all food requires insulin to be utilized.5 -
hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?3 -
hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
The intake may be the same, but is the output through exercise?
It is 100% about calories.3 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...2 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...
That would be interesting to see. It's been awhile since I saw someone on here with the stones to use that raving lunatic as a "source"0 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...
That would be interesting to see. It's been awhile since I saw someone on here with the stones to use that raving lunatic as a "source"
I think I saw it a couple nights ago. Mercola and Dr. Oz are frequently "sourced".1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »A calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. Low carb is a tool you can use for that or to address health concerns.
Low fat and high fiber eating is also a means of addressing health concerns. So is eating at a calorie deficit. So is eating a wide variety of nutritious foods. So is limiting saturated fat. So is limiting sodium. So is limiting cholesterol.
It all depends on your particular health concerns, so general "health concerns" claims made about any specific diet and meant to be applied in a broad sense are rather silly.
For most people, diets aren't medical prescriptions, even if there are some limits placed upon them by medical conditions.
What drives me batty when I mention LCHF, it is nit-picked at, repeatedly in various threads.
I mean, really? Saying Low carb is tool you can use to meet a calorie deficit or to address health concerns is wrong? I KNOW it depends on the health issue and I am sure that the vast majority of people would realize that too. I did not say ALL health concerns. I said people can use it to address health concerns... or should I now be concerned that people will assume I meant that eating LCHF will address someone else's health concern? Let's give people some credit! I think people know LCHF is not magic.
I don't think we need to mention every other diet under the sun that can address a health issue in a "Low Carb or Low Calorie?" thread... Although I guess mentioning limiting food can help some issues would fit here.
ETA Sorry OP. I let some MFP history amd my flu crankiness shine through there. But if my original comment did confuse you, I'm sorry.
The thing is, you never see a moderate way of eating touted as doing all sorts of magical things. Non-ethical vegans do. Regular ethical vegans don't, vegetarians don't, higher carb moderators don't. That's what I take issue with.
Actually I usually see that post oten immediatly after someone claims a health benefit from a different diet. Stuff like:
LCHF helped reverse my T2d - So would losing weight, adding fibre and exercising...
Veganism did x,y,z - So does eating a healthy steak once in a while...
Following a paleo diet helped wih my autoimmune disease - So would eating a healthy well balanced diet...
I see it enough. More than enough. But if it is possibly a helpful, healthful diet, say it. Why not?
So often you see LCHF fanatics (not you) make claims that the only way to reverse T2d, insulin resistance and a whole host of other conditions is through keto. It is then followed with a whole bunch of woo. You and I both know that the reality is that keto can help these conditions but many have had equal success with moderate macro ratios while losing weight and increasing exercise. LCHF is a great tool for some to achieve their desired results and should be promoted as such. However, it is too often promoted as being a magic solution and the only solution. Of course people that make these claims are going to get responses of the likes you just posted. It is because too many are going this option thinking it is the only way to lose weight.
Rule of thumb, if LCHF is not sustainable for you then just don't do it. There are other way of achieving the same results that you can maintain for life. If you can make permanent changes that reduce your carb intake and doing this enables you to stay within calorie goals for life, while giving you the desired health benefits then go for it as finding what works for you is half the battle with weight loss.4 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...
That would be interesting to see. It's been awhile since I saw someone on here with the stones to use that raving lunatic as a "source"
Really...?, I think I just saw him sourced the other day, in one of the 54 diet soda is the debil threads.1 -
JustRobby1 wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »hesterific wrote: »Low carb is the best option. Over the last 30 years the caloric intake in both the US and Britain have roughly stayed the same but both countries have a serious obesity issue. Why? Calories aren't the issue. That therory is 50 years old and has been debunked 100 times over. Our bodies aren't that simplistic, we don't burn (or store) every type of calorie the same way (sugar calorie compared to, say olive oil). One has a massive hormonal effect, one has literally none.
CICO has been "debunked" now has it? By whom exactly?
Mercola in 3...2...1...
That would be interesting to see. It's been awhile since I saw someone on here with the stones to use that raving lunatic as a "source"
Really...?, I think I just saw him sourced the other day, in one of the 54 diet soda is the debil threads.
I always miss all the good stuff. I love the crazies on here. They are highly entertaining.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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