Low Carb Struggles
Options
Replies
-
tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
Water weight.7 -
tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Here are some easier to read articles on this, they link out to the studies if you really want to read that deep.
http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml
https://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/biggest-weight-loss-myth-revealed
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/standalone/1lb-does-not-equal-3500-calories/
I requested peer-reviewed scientific studies, not magazine articles and fitness blog posts.
And I'm not even going to get started with the rest of your reply. You really, really need to research actual scientific information, because you are greatly misinformed. You can continue to think I am the misinformed one while I enjoy being nearly half the person I used to be using methods you say don't work.
17 -
tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/7 -
Low carb may simply not be for you, OP. Everyone is different. However make sure your electrolytes (salt, potassium, magnesium) are in order and that you are in fact eating plenty of fat. Lean proteins and leafy vegetables alone won't fill up or satisfy anyone.
I found that I have a taste for fattier foods, I rather eat bacon and cheese than bread and pasta, so I feel better on on low carb, high fat diets. Having said that, fat doesn't melt off of me and I still count, measure every bite and as I get closer to my goal half a pound a week is about all I lose. My best friend is the opposite, she can't do without starchy foods and rather skips the cream and butter. We're all different, you gotta eat what's right for you, not what the internet tells you to.5 -
tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
First, congrats on your weight loss! That is truly a great accomplishment.
Here are some easier to read articles on this, they link out to the studies if you really want to read that deep.
http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml
https://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/biggest-weight-loss-myth-revealed
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/standalone/1lb-does-not-equal-3500-calories/
But here's the thing, show me one, even just one study that the 3500 calorie hypothesis actually worked. You will be looking for a really long time. Yes, eating less will equal losing weight, but a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie. And, every single study that ever did the formula of reducing calories by X calories to equal a deficit of X calories for the week, never even once equaled the number of pounds that should have been lost.
To break it down, say that a study has a controlled group that they were able to keep all things constant and feed an exact deficit of 7000 calories per week, which should equal 2 pounds of loss per week. Say the study lasted 10 weeks. Weight lost for each participant should be 20 pounds, but that will not be the case. Weight loss will be all over the place. It's not because of size, or whatever because the 3500 calorie hypothesis is supposed to be independent of anything else. 3500 calories per pound. But it's not, and that has been proven (even if you just say in the reverse) many times over. But I'd love to see a study that actually supports it, if you can find it. The fact is, we don't need to be calorie counting machines. The idea of trying to create this perfect balance of calories in/calories out is insanity and will no doubt cause anyone to crumble after a while.
And like I said in my original post, there is no one size fits all approach. But I do think there are ways to lose weight and not feel deprived the whole time or be on the insulin roller coaster all day every day. Low carb is definitely not for everyone, but 100 calorie packs of oreos and 100 calories of wild caught salmon act very different in your body and the salmon will leave you satiated for hours, versus the blood sugar crash and accompanying cravings/hunger pangs/sleepiness 30 minutes after the cookies.
We don't need the "easier to read articles" - we can read actual studies. So you mind linking those?
And hypothetical studies are pretty much worth, well, nothing.
Quite honestly, I have lost, gained and maintained pretty much as predicted using 3500 calories as a pound. So my n-1 beats your hypothetical study.
n=1...
Anyway, show me a study that the numbers worked? Those articles have links to the studies, I don't start with those because most people glaze over.
But here's some for you...
Here's one showing that having a higher protein diet, with the same calorie deficit lost more than the lower protein counter part: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29143803 If it were just calories, that wouldn't have changed it would it??
Here's another: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/3/555.long?rel=1#T2 This was a 6 month study with 3 groups. Between reduced food and drink calories and increased exercise, the daily deficit for each group was as follows: AC- reduced by 600 cal/day, DB- reduced by 600 cal/day, WA- reduced by 800 cal/day. But if it was reduced to that extent over 6 months, then the 3500 calorie hypothesis would say that each group would have averaged losses as follows: AC- 31.2#, DB- 31.2#, WA- 41.6# (that's cals reduced times half a year, I rounded down to 182 days, divided by 3500). But what did they lose? Close to that amount? Nope....AC-2kg = ~4.4#, DB-2.6kg = ~5.7#, WA- 1.9kg = ~1.9#. Whoa! So the group with the highest deficit lost the least on average?! Weird.....And even more so, the controls were pretty much the same as the diet beverage...so probably just natural variations in daily intake...The 3500 calorie hypothesis is not true, not even close.9 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Here are some easier to read articles on this, they link out to the studies if you really want to read that deep.
http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/111114p36.shtml
https://www.runnersworld.com/weight-loss/biggest-weight-loss-myth-revealed
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/standalone/1lb-does-not-equal-3500-calories/
I requested peer-reviewed scientific studies, not magazine articles and fitness blog posts.
And I'm not even going to get started with the rest of your reply. You really, really need to research actual scientific information, because you are greatly misinformed. You can continue to think I am the misinformed one while I enjoy being nearly half the person I used to be using methods you say don't work.
Please, show me the studies that prove the 3500 calorie hypothesis? I would really love to read them, honestly. I provided studies in another reply if you want to take a look. Now I'd really love to see the evidence in the positive for 3500 calories equalling a pound. I have not found it.6 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I definitely know you can stall your metabolism, but the reason I got to where I was, was due to lack of results. I started with a much smaller deficit and over time increased it to see even the 1 pound per week. Now that I'm fat adapted, I eat at least twice the calories, exercise half as much and lost 20 pounds in just a few weeks. And now I'm smaller than I was when I counted calories and I'm never deprived. So I didn't wreck my metabolism.
But as I've stated, there is no one size fits all approach. Low carb feels better for some, Low cal feels better for others, and others like Keto. Honestly, I think the worst thing we do to ourselves is eating a ton of processed foods. There are plenty of people that eat Paleo (real paleo, not bacon at every meal paleo) - fresh fruits and veggies and moderate, grass fed meats- no dairy, grains or processed foods, and they naturally lose and maintain. They don't keep track of any of this.9 -
I could never do just low carb successfully. However, since I started Keto I"m happy have great energy and always feel full0
-
tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I definitely know you can stall your metabolism, but the reason I got to where I was, was due to lack of results. I started with a much smaller deficit and over time increased it to see even the 1 pound per week. Now that I'm fat adapted, I eat at least twice the calories, exercise half as much and lost 20 pounds in just a few weeks. And now I'm smaller than I was when I counted calories and I'm never deprived. So I didn't wreck my metabolism.
But as I've stated, there is no one size fits all approach. Low carb feels better for some, Low cal feels better for others, and others like Keto. Honestly, I think the worst thing we do to ourselves is eating a ton of processed foods. There are plenty of people that eat Paleo (real paleo, not bacon at every meal paleo) - fresh fruits and veggies and moderate, grass fed meats- no dairy, grains or processed foods, and they naturally lose and maintain. They don't keep track of any of this.
If people on Paleo naturally lose and maintain, does this mean the diet isn't appropriate for young people (who need to grow) and those who wish to add body mass (like muscle)?
By "naturally lose and maintain," it sounds like you're saying the number of calories on this diet are irrelevant. If this is the case, how does your body know when to stop losing and start maintaining?
If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize.7 -
tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I definitely know you can stall your metabolism, but the reason I got to where I was, was due to lack of results. I started with a much smaller deficit and over time increased it to see even the 1 pound per week. Now that I'm fat adapted, I eat at least twice the calories, exercise half as much and lost 20 pounds in just a few weeks. And now I'm smaller than I was when I counted calories and I'm never deprived. So I didn't wreck my metabolism.
But as I've stated, there is no one size fits all approach. Low carb feels better for some, Low cal feels better for others, and others like Keto. Honestly, I think the worst thing we do to ourselves is eating a ton of processed foods. There are plenty of people that eat Paleo (real paleo, not bacon at every meal paleo) - fresh fruits and veggies and moderate, grass fed meats- no dairy, grains or processed foods, and they naturally lose and maintain. They don't keep track of any of this.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. In no way is that article I linked talking about stalling or wrecking your metabolism.
As to 'real paleo', lol. Are you going to try to tell me that's how Palaeolithic people ate? And just because they're not tracking, doesn't mean they're not at a caloric deficit.6 -
Yikes you are going to catch heck from the MFP Warrior Class. But I have had a lot of success from low carbs over the years. As I get older my body feels better when I do it. But you do have to really follow it. Not just eat lots of protein and fat. I do a lot of veggies and moderate amts of protein and good fats. I never get over the pasta cravings but I do feel much better overall and have a lots of energy. But in the end your body has to be good with it.2
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I definitely know you can stall your metabolism, but the reason I got to where I was, was due to lack of results. I started with a much smaller deficit and over time increased it to see even the 1 pound per week. Now that I'm fat adapted, I eat at least twice the calories, exercise half as much and lost 20 pounds in just a few weeks. And now I'm smaller than I was when I counted calories and I'm never deprived. So I didn't wreck my metabolism.
But as I've stated, there is no one size fits all approach. Low carb feels better for some, Low cal feels better for others, and others like Keto. Honestly, I think the worst thing we do to ourselves is eating a ton of processed foods. There are plenty of people that eat Paleo (real paleo, not bacon at every meal paleo) - fresh fruits and veggies and moderate, grass fed meats- no dairy, grains or processed foods, and they naturally lose and maintain. They don't keep track of any of this.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. In no way is that article I linked talking about stalling or wrecking your metabolism.
As to 'real paleo', lol. Are you going to try to tell me that's how Palaeolithic people ate? And just because they're not tracking, doesn't mean they're not at a caloric deficit.
The article talks about stress and cortisol, which I covered by saying I felt good and wasn't overly tired, etc. in the post you replied to. So I figured I'd cover the idea that it would have wrecked your metabolism....
But on the Paleo thing, yes, it may be a calorie deficit, but like the other studies I posted, that doesn't explain fat loss or lack of it. Also, no, it is impossible for us to eat like real paleolithic people - the food is not the same and our environment is definitely not the same. My meaning of 'real' means, not the hyped up media thing of bacon at every meal and mounds of meat on your plate. I meant the real theory of eating whole, minimally processed, 'real' food.
And, even the article you posted shows it's not just about calories as there are many factors.5 -
I'm sorry, but any weight loss plan that has affected your reproductive system cycle and your digestive system and leaves you feeling constantly hungry, is not good for you, nor is it sustainable. I have lost 40 pounds eating carbs at every meal, because I'm a vegetarian. Low-carbers, keto diets, low fat, high fat, high protein, etc., all have one thing in common...reduction in calorie intake. A calorie, is a calorie for purposes of fueling your body and excess calories get stored as fat. There is no magic in low carb diets. Plug all of your vital statistics into MFP, accurately track and log everything you eat and drink and your exercise. Then only eat back half of your exercise calories (because MFP tends to overestimate the number of calories burned) and you will lose weight. You won't lose exactly a pound a week or two pounds a week because everyone's body is different. Sometimes, I have logged and tracked faithfully and not lost an ounce for 10 days. Then on day 11, I step on the scale and see a pound gone, then day 12, shows another half pound gone. Weight loss is not linear, correction...it is never linear. It is the result of small changes made faithfully and consistently over a very long period of time. Feeling hungry, sick and uncomfortable does not translate to a way of eating that can be maintained over a long period of time, thus, it will not produce successful, long-term weight loss. Find a way of eating that stays within your daily calorie limit that does not make you sick or keep you constantly hungry and good luck.8
-
tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I definitely know you can stall your metabolism, but the reason I got to where I was, was due to lack of results. I started with a much smaller deficit and over time increased it to see even the 1 pound per week. Now that I'm fat adapted, I eat at least twice the calories, exercise half as much and lost 20 pounds in just a few weeks. And now I'm smaller than I was when I counted calories and I'm never deprived. So I didn't wreck my metabolism.
But as I've stated, there is no one size fits all approach. Low carb feels better for some, Low cal feels better for others, and others like Keto. Honestly, I think the worst thing we do to ourselves is eating a ton of processed foods. There are plenty of people that eat Paleo (real paleo, not bacon at every meal paleo) - fresh fruits and veggies and moderate, grass fed meats- no dairy, grains or processed foods, and they naturally lose and maintain. They don't keep track of any of this.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. In no way is that article I linked talking about stalling or wrecking your metabolism.
As to 'real paleo', lol. Are you going to try to tell me that's how Palaeolithic people ate? And just because they're not tracking, doesn't mean they're not at a caloric deficit.
The article talks about stress and cortisol, which I covered by saying I felt good and wasn't overly tired, etc. in the post you replied to. So I figured I'd cover the idea that it would have wrecked your metabolism....
But on the Paleo thing, yes, it may be a calorie deficit, but like the other studies I posted, that doesn't explain fat loss or lack of it. Also, no, it is impossible for us to eat like real paleolithic people - the food is not the same and our environment is definitely not the same. My meaning of 'real' means, not the hyped up media thing of bacon at every meal and mounds of meat on your plate. I meant the real theory of eating whole, minimally processed, 'real' food.
And, even the article you posted shows it's not just about calories as there are many factors.
Just because you felt good doesn't mean your cortisol wasn't jacked through the roof. And fat loss is just about calories. Other factors can affect scale weight. I guess a lot of people only care about what the scale says though. You could do with learning a bit more about physiology.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I definitely know you can stall your metabolism, but the reason I got to where I was, was due to lack of results. I started with a much smaller deficit and over time increased it to see even the 1 pound per week. Now that I'm fat adapted, I eat at least twice the calories, exercise half as much and lost 20 pounds in just a few weeks. And now I'm smaller than I was when I counted calories and I'm never deprived. So I didn't wreck my metabolism.
But as I've stated, there is no one size fits all approach. Low carb feels better for some, Low cal feels better for others, and others like Keto. Honestly, I think the worst thing we do to ourselves is eating a ton of processed foods. There are plenty of people that eat Paleo (real paleo, not bacon at every meal paleo) - fresh fruits and veggies and moderate, grass fed meats- no dairy, grains or processed foods, and they naturally lose and maintain. They don't keep track of any of this.
If people on Paleo naturally lose and maintain, does this mean the diet isn't appropriate for young people (who need to grow) and those who wish to add body mass (like muscle)?
By "naturally lose and maintain," it sounds like you're saying the number of calories on this diet are irrelevant. If this is the case, how does your body know when to stop losing and start maintaining?
If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologize.
The idea behind eating 'Paleo' is about eating whole, real, minimally processed foods. So yes, I think anyone could safely eat that way. As far as growing kids, they eat more when they are hungry and growing. They eat less when they are not. If they are equipped with eating a real food diet. It's the sugary, processed junk that throws kids off.
Our bodies are awesome if we listen to them. When you are eating in a way that is appropriate for your body, you naturally eat what you need. There is no need for your body to know when to stop losing and when to start maintaining. Your body will find its equilibrium if you let it.10 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I definitely know you can stall your metabolism, but the reason I got to where I was, was due to lack of results. I started with a much smaller deficit and over time increased it to see even the 1 pound per week. Now that I'm fat adapted, I eat at least twice the calories, exercise half as much and lost 20 pounds in just a few weeks. And now I'm smaller than I was when I counted calories and I'm never deprived. So I didn't wreck my metabolism.
But as I've stated, there is no one size fits all approach. Low carb feels better for some, Low cal feels better for others, and others like Keto. Honestly, I think the worst thing we do to ourselves is eating a ton of processed foods. There are plenty of people that eat Paleo (real paleo, not bacon at every meal paleo) - fresh fruits and veggies and moderate, grass fed meats- no dairy, grains or processed foods, and they naturally lose and maintain. They don't keep track of any of this.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. In no way is that article I linked talking about stalling or wrecking your metabolism.
As to 'real paleo', lol. Are you going to try to tell me that's how Palaeolithic people ate? And just because they're not tracking, doesn't mean they're not at a caloric deficit.
The article talks about stress and cortisol, which I covered by saying I felt good and wasn't overly tired, etc. in the post you replied to. So I figured I'd cover the idea that it would have wrecked your metabolism....
But on the Paleo thing, yes, it may be a calorie deficit, but like the other studies I posted, that doesn't explain fat loss or lack of it. Also, no, it is impossible for us to eat like real paleolithic people - the food is not the same and our environment is definitely not the same. My meaning of 'real' means, not the hyped up media thing of bacon at every meal and mounds of meat on your plate. I meant the real theory of eating whole, minimally processed, 'real' food.
And, even the article you posted shows it's not just about calories as there are many factors.
Just because you felt good doesn't mean your cortisol wasn't jacked through the roof. And fat loss is just about calories. Other factors can affect scale weight. I guess a lot of people only care about what the scale says though. You could do with learning a bit more about physiology.
Please do enlighten me. I am in grad school for this very thing. Cortisol causes weight gain/retention around the mid section, I have an hour glass figure. It is associated with adrenal issues and mood swings (which is why I mentioned how I felt). It is associated with blood pressure issues, my is usually super low (then and now). Sleep disturbances, I had none. GI issues, none again. I had none of the sign of having too high of cortisol.
So if fat loss is just about calories- if I ate all day only oreos = 1500 calories, or if I ate pure lard all day = 1500 calories, or if I ate pure protein only = 1500 or if I ate only green vegetables = 1500 calories per day - My weight loss/gain/maintenance would be exactly the same? No matter which path I chose?8 -
yes because a calorie is a measure of energy - nutrition and calories are separate entities - just because you can eat 1500cal a day of twinkies and lose weight doesn't mean you should because you would be missing other micronutrients11
-
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I definitely know you can stall your metabolism, but the reason I got to where I was, was due to lack of results. I started with a much smaller deficit and over time increased it to see even the 1 pound per week. Now that I'm fat adapted, I eat at least twice the calories, exercise half as much and lost 20 pounds in just a few weeks. And now I'm smaller than I was when I counted calories and I'm never deprived. So I didn't wreck my metabolism.
But as I've stated, there is no one size fits all approach. Low carb feels better for some, Low cal feels better for others, and others like Keto. Honestly, I think the worst thing we do to ourselves is eating a ton of processed foods. There are plenty of people that eat Paleo (real paleo, not bacon at every meal paleo) - fresh fruits and veggies and moderate, grass fed meats- no dairy, grains or processed foods, and they naturally lose and maintain. They don't keep track of any of this.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. In no way is that article I linked talking about stalling or wrecking your metabolism.
As to 'real paleo', lol. Are you going to try to tell me that's how Palaeolithic people ate? And just because they're not tracking, doesn't mean they're not at a caloric deficit.
The article talks about stress and cortisol, which I covered by saying I felt good and wasn't overly tired, etc. in the post you replied to. So I figured I'd cover the idea that it would have wrecked your metabolism....
But on the Paleo thing, yes, it may be a calorie deficit, but like the other studies I posted, that doesn't explain fat loss or lack of it. Also, no, it is impossible for us to eat like real paleolithic people - the food is not the same and our environment is definitely not the same. My meaning of 'real' means, not the hyped up media thing of bacon at every meal and mounds of meat on your plate. I meant the real theory of eating whole, minimally processed, 'real' food.
And, even the article you posted shows it's not just about calories as there are many factors.
Just because you felt good doesn't mean your cortisol wasn't jacked through the roof. And fat loss is just about calories. Other factors can affect scale weight. I guess a lot of people only care about what the scale says though. You could do with learning a bit more about physiology.
Please do enlighten me. I am in grad school for this very thing. Cortisol causes weight gain/retention around the mid section, I have an hour glass figure. It is associated with adrenal issues and mood swings (which is why I mentioned how I felt). It is associated with blood pressure issues, my is usually super low (then and now). Sleep disturbances, I had none. GI issues, none again. I had none of the sign of having too high of cortisol.
So if fat loss is just about calories- if I ate all day only oreos = 1500 calories, or if I ate pure lard all day = 1500 calories, or if I ate pure protein only = 1500 or if I ate only green vegetables = 1500 calories per day - My weight loss/gain/maintenance would be exactly the same? No matter which path I chose?
Pretty much....
LOL Ok. I can see I should have never been sucked into this then.6 -
tammyd_white wrote: »suzannesimmons3 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »tammyd_white wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »I started a low-carb diet nearly 3 weeks ago. Weight loss has been steady but I'm struggling on several points. I'm early 30s, 5'6", 279 lbs, female.
1. I never feel full or satisfied - always hungry no matter what/how often I eat.
2. At what point will my digestive track acclimate? Every other day seems to bring a different gastrointestinal challenge.
3. This has my lady organs all confused. My TOM nearly coincided with the start of this diet change and I've yet to stop spotting (both bright and dark colors). What is the deal?
I've read that these results are normal for 3 or 4 days but I'm well pass that point.
I drink plenty of water, 1 cup of herbal tea or decaf coffee per day, no alcohol, limited fruits/nuts/dairy/seeds. I'm hard core into the green leafies, eggs, and baked/broiled/grilled meats, shrimp, and fish. I cook with either butter or olive oil. I haven't added cardio though I have been doing small bouts of body weight exercises throughout the day.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Any advice to help ease these effects? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
It looks like you've gotten tons of anti-low carb advice, and if you think abandoning that is appropriate for you, then so be it. But what I'm guessing it that you've tried many methods, Low Cal, Low Fat, etc. So here's another perspective. The calorie hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis (the whole 3500 cals per pound thing). It has actually been proven many times over that there is no correlation to the number of calories to weight loss. Look up Zoe Harcombe. She has run several studies on this and has amazing insight. Also, low fat has been proven many times over as harmful. Every one of our cells are coated in myelin which is primarily made of fats and our brains are over half fat. You have to add ESSENTIAL fat to your diet in order to have healthy cells and a healthy brain. (There are plenty of studies on PubMed about it, here's one to get you started.)
So all that said, what is right then? Well, like anything else there is no one size fits all for anyone. You need to play with your diet until you are feeling satisfied AND getting the results you want. My first attempt at correcting persistent hunger would be to decrease protein and increase fat. Try starting your day with a bullet proof style coffee. Lots of good fats can really go a long way. There's a granola I like from Julian's Bakery that is Keto and Paleo friendly. Lots of fiber, but not lots of artificial ingredients. It's called ProGranola. I have it with unsweetened almond milk. It keeps me full for hours.
And don't forget, too much protein will get converted into glucose through a process known as gluconeogenesis. So don't go overboard with meat. Eat lots of non-starchy veggies like salad greens, broccoli, asparagus, green beans, brussels sprouts, etc. They are filling, with lots of nutrients and not many digestible carbs. Eat them with a fat source in order to benefit from their fat soluble vitamins (A,D,E and K).
Avoid processed foods, and those 'low carb' versions of foods like pastas and breads. Those are still wheat and usually cause people to have cravings and are left feeling unsatisfied. And lots of the low carb candies and shakes are also sometimes triggering for people and end up just causing more guts issues than they are worth.
Hope that helps. Good luck with your journey.
Umm. No, a calorie deficit absolutely has not been proven many times over to be incorrect for weight loss. Please give us links to a couple of these many many peer-reviewed studies proving weight loss is not related to a specific reduction in calories.
By the way. I lost 130lbs just counting calories. And if I look back at my numbers they average between 50-60% carbs. Granted, that high a carb percentage doesn't work for everyone, but it can work for some. And the calorie counting absolutely positively did work the way it should have.
Unicorn sighting!
Really, this is the ground truth. There are no repeatable, peer-reviewed studies that show that a calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss. When people refer to studies that "prove" things that contradict solid scientific conclusions, they are following links in articles and blogs that lead to sites that are either web pages for "Doctors" selling diet woo, or one-off poorly designed experiments that prove only that the people involved have no idea what they're doing.
As a side note, it's unfortunate that an advanced degree doesn't automatically result in even a minimum of ethical integrity. "Doctors" who use their title to scam the public to make themselves rich are despicable. Not only do they suck money from desperate people, they cause many who can't afford the price of the woo to live in fear of what they may be doing to their bodies by not "detoxing" or drinking the expensive teas and shakes.
No, there's no study showing the the 3500 calories per pound is accurate. In fact, every study ever done based on that hypothesis, has proved themselves to be inaccurate. Look for even one. One that shows the correct correlation to X calorie deficit to pounds. Yes, reducing your intake will cause weight loss, but the 3500 calorie per pound is not true.
So what? What if it's 3167? CICO still applies.
The problem is, if it's off, then the whole thing is wrong. Meaning if it was 3167 and removed 500/day- you should lose faster. But that's not what happens. I personally used to have a 1,000+ calorie deficit between diet and exercise EVERY day. I ate only 1200 calories, which is the minimum I should be eating. I felt fine, not tired or run down, so it wasn't over doing it with the deficit/working out. But on a GOOD week, I lost maybe 2 pounds. And most of the time it was more like 1, maybe. But I ran 3 miles 4 days per week, ran 6 miles 1 day per week, and weight trained 4 days per week (the 3 mile days were two a days) and only ate 1200 calories per day. How does that formula work? Even if it's 4,000 per pound? 5,000 per pound? Would have to be more than 7,000 per pound to work for me, but I also know plenty of people who give up 1 soda a day (~300 calories), change nothing else, and lose several pounds a week....How does that work?
https://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I definitely know you can stall your metabolism, but the reason I got to where I was, was due to lack of results. I started with a much smaller deficit and over time increased it to see even the 1 pound per week. Now that I'm fat adapted, I eat at least twice the calories, exercise half as much and lost 20 pounds in just a few weeks. And now I'm smaller than I was when I counted calories and I'm never deprived. So I didn't wreck my metabolism.
But as I've stated, there is no one size fits all approach. Low carb feels better for some, Low cal feels better for others, and others like Keto. Honestly, I think the worst thing we do to ourselves is eating a ton of processed foods. There are plenty of people that eat Paleo (real paleo, not bacon at every meal paleo) - fresh fruits and veggies and moderate, grass fed meats- no dairy, grains or processed foods, and they naturally lose and maintain. They don't keep track of any of this.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. In no way is that article I linked talking about stalling or wrecking your metabolism.
As to 'real paleo', lol. Are you going to try to tell me that's how Palaeolithic people ate? And just because they're not tracking, doesn't mean they're not at a caloric deficit.
The article talks about stress and cortisol, which I covered by saying I felt good and wasn't overly tired, etc. in the post you replied to. So I figured I'd cover the idea that it would have wrecked your metabolism....
But on the Paleo thing, yes, it may be a calorie deficit, but like the other studies I posted, that doesn't explain fat loss or lack of it. Also, no, it is impossible for us to eat like real paleolithic people - the food is not the same and our environment is definitely not the same. My meaning of 'real' means, not the hyped up media thing of bacon at every meal and mounds of meat on your plate. I meant the real theory of eating whole, minimally processed, 'real' food.
And, even the article you posted shows it's not just about calories as there are many factors.
Just because you felt good doesn't mean your cortisol wasn't jacked through the roof. And fat loss is just about calories. Other factors can affect scale weight. I guess a lot of people only care about what the scale says though. You could do with learning a bit more about physiology.
Please do enlighten me. I am in grad school for this very thing. Cortisol causes weight gain/retention around the mid section, I have an hour glass figure. It is associated with adrenal issues and mood swings (which is why I mentioned how I felt). It is associated with blood pressure issues, my is usually super low (then and now). Sleep disturbances, I had none. GI issues, none again. I had none of the sign of having too high of cortisol.
So if fat loss is just about calories- if I ate all day only oreos = 1500 calories, or if I ate pure lard all day = 1500 calories, or if I ate pure protein only = 1500 or if I ate only green vegetables = 1500 calories per day - My weight loss/gain/maintenance would be exactly the same? No matter which path I chose?
Pretty much....
LOL Ok. I can see I should have never been sucked into this then.
16
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions