Low Carb Struggles
Replies
-
deannalfisher wrote: »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 micronutrients
I agree. But even outside of that - if all things are equal as far as micro nutrients. Straight calories are not the same. The oreos will stimulate lots of insulin, the lard will not. The excess protein will be converted to glucose. Etc. They just are not treated the same.5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »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.
We have essential fatty acids (fat) and essential amino acids (protein). No essential carbs. Otherwise, I don't completely disagree with a lot of that graphic. as I've stated, I do think that people should do what feels best for them. But if you are struggling (which was the point of all this to begin with - read the title), there are ways to make it better.2 -
HayloHorrible wrote: »Research the Ketogenic diet. It could help.
If the OP is already struggling on their Low Carb diet, why would you think going lower would be the solution?5 -
tammyd_white wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »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.
We have essential fatty acids (fat) and essential amino acids (protein). No essential carbs. Otherwise, I don't completely disagree with a lot of that graphic. as I've stated, I do think that people should do what feels best for them. But if you are struggling (which was the point of all this to begin with - read the title), there are ways to make it better.
I'm not struggling at all. But I think wading deep into the weeds is not helpful for the average MFP user asking for help.
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »HayloHorrible wrote: »Research the Ketogenic diet. It could help.
If the OP is already struggling on their Low Carb diet, why would you think going lower would be the solution?
11 -
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.
I guess I must be a robot. I have been on MFP since the end of June and tracking and eating what it tells me. I am a female over 50, not completely through menopause (so there are the hormones) and thought it was going to be very hard to lose weight. The CICO has been working wonderfully for me so far. I've lost 32 lbs. (with 3 weeks of maintenance since I started), and it has been pretty much 1.5-2.0 lbs. a week. I don't know about studies or research, but this is working for me, and lots of people on MFP.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.
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.
Why are you so hung up on needing proof that a deficit of exactly 3,500 calories will result in exactly 1.0000 lb of fat loss? There are extenuating factors on both sides of the CI CO equation - things like inaccuracy of measuring calorie intake, inability to accurate measure calorie burns during exercise, hormones, stress, natural weight fluctuations, etc.
None of those things invalidate the concept of CICO - which is a fundamental energy balance. Furthermore, the inability to accurately measure, to the decimal point, the whole number, or even the tens place what a person burns, does not invalidate the concept of CICO. What matter is repeatability and taking actual results, monitoring and adjusting your plan from there.
Also - I'm not sure why you believe that no one has ever been successful at using the predictions of 3,500 cals = 1 lb of fat. I, and many others using this site, have lost weight as predicted based on tracking intake (confession - I don't even use a food scale) and estimating calorie burn using MFP entries, HRM, or activity trackers like FitBit. I lost the weight I set out to lose, in the time that I wanted to lose it in, and have successfully maintained ever since. People who don't have predictable results are always quick to blame the CICO model as not good enough - rather than looking at their own habits to determine if the underlying cause is somewhere in underestimating intake, or overestimating calorie burn.14 -
tammyd_white 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.
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.
yoooo.....
That's not what this study said. Participants were encouraged to replace x number of calories' worth of caloric drinks with noncaloric drinks. Everything else they ate was not "controlled". They just had a list of foods they could eat, but not set amounts of it.
Literally, the conclusion is that "Replacement of caloric beverages with noncaloric beverages as a weight-loss strategy resulted in average weight losses of 2% to 2.5%. This strategy could have public health significance and is a simple, straightforward message."
ETA: that message is that if you reduce your calories, you will lose more weight. In this case, it was if you drink two (or three or four, depending on your cohort) non caloric drinks, you will lose more weight than if you drink two (or three, etc) caloric drinks. Please don't selectively pull information out of studies. You will be fact checked.18 -
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?
You're muddying the waters for a newbie with something you don't really understand.
The energy balance equation actually answers the question you're ansking on the calories OUT side of the equation with the thermic effect of digestion.
Yes, it's all about calories, but it's not just about calories in.
There are mitigating factors involved also, in that some people digest greater portions of food than others do, so will absorb more calories from the same food (say 100 grams of carrots) than the next person.
So no, you won't put on the same exact amount of weight with each of those foods because the cost of digesting each of them is different, with the cost of digesting pure protein being the highest.
HOWEVER. Close enough is good enough for most people to use calorie counting or at least estimating to put the principles of creating an energy deficit to work to lose weight.
It is how all weight is loss and there is NO science that disputes this. Everything else is smoke and mirrors and obfuscates the fact that taking in less energy than you burn results in your body burning stored fat.
Now. To the OP.
OP, I low carbed for ten years. When I first started, my adjustment period didn't last quite as long as yours is taking you, but I wasn't counting calories at the time.
If your deficit isn't overly aggressive, it might be that low carbing isn't for you.
Different macro balances are satisfying for different people. If you're not attempting an overly aggressive rate of loss, try eating more carbohydrates. It might just be that you don't find this way of eating filling. A little hunger on a diet is normal. What you're describing isn't.
I would suggest you keep your protein intake to a minimum of .6-.8 grams per pound of your ideal body weight. This is for retention of lean mass while you diet. Fat intake should be at a minimum of around .35- .45 grams per pound of ideal body weight. Calories left after that can be divided up at your discretion, according to what keeps you feeling best.
Good luck.16 -
tammyd_white wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »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 micronutrients
I agree. But even outside of that - if all things are equal as far as micro nutrients. Straight calories are not the same. The oreos will stimulate lots of insulin, the lard will not. The excess protein will be converted to glucose. Etc. They just are not treated the same.
But insulin storing sugar is only an issue if you are eating excess calories. Protein being converted to glucose is only a problem if you are eating excess calories. It all comes back to... excess calories.
If your body needs 1900 calories of energy to do everything it does throughout the day, and you eat 1500 cals, whether they are Oreos or broccoli or olive oil you will not store fat.
If your body needs 1900 calories of energy in a day, and you eat 2500 cals, whether they are Oreos or broccoli or olive oil you will store fat.
What food you eat will affect all sorts of important things, including how much food you want to eat, but it will not override energy balance. Yes some people find a way to eat that keeps them at the right calorie level without counting, but just because they aren't counting doesn't mean the calories aren't what matters.
As far as calorie counting not being perfect, that's true, But tweaking your numbers as you go based on your results is a pretty basic solution to that. Unfortunately, not everyone is adept at keeping good records and being patient. Luckily, I am, so it worked perfectly for me.18 -
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.
Nobody in here is saying no one should ever do low carb. Just that it isn't right for everyone, and if OP is struggling, she might want to reconsider. What exactly is wrong with that?
9 -
WinoGelato 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.
Why are you so hung up on needing proof that a deficit of exactly 3,500 calories will result in exactly 1.0000 lb of fat loss? There are extenuating factors on both sides of the CI CO equation - things like inaccuracy of measuring calorie intake, inability to accurate measure calorie burns during exercise, hormones, stress, natural weight fluctuations, etc.
None of those things invalidate the concept of CICO - which is a fundamental energy balance. Furthermore, the inability to accurately measure, to the decimal point, the whole number, or even the tens place what a person burns, does not invalidate the concept of CICO. What matter is repeatability and taking actual results, monitoring and adjusting your plan from there.
Also - I'm not sure why you believe that no one has ever been successful at using the predictions of 3,500 cals = 1 lb of fat. I, and many others using this site, have lost weight as predicted based on tracking intake (confession - I don't even use a food scale) and estimating calorie burn using MFP entries, HRM, or activity trackers like FitBit. I lost the weight I set out to lose, in the time that I wanted to lose it in, and have successfully maintained ever since. People who don't have predictable results are always quick to blame the CICO model as not good enough - rather than looking at their own habits to determine if the underlying cause is somewhere in underestimating intake, or overestimating calorie burn.
I've recently been tracking very closely and I'm one of the lucky ones. I actually lose faster than the 3500 rule predicts. And I love me some carbs and am visited regularly by the insulin fairy.5 -
*face palm*
From a ketoer to the OP. If you are struggling ... please stop. This woe or even low carb doesn't work for everyone. Enjoy your carbs! There is nothing wrong with them! It's about CICO no matter what way you choose to eat. Find what is right for you.
And please. Don't drink the kool aid. Or the fat for that matter.
99% of what has been said in this thread is rubbish. And I am NOT talking about the veteran posters either! 19 -
This content has been removed.
-
I tried low carb/keto/banting for weight loss, nothing medical. When it was unsustainable for me in the long run, i put all my weight back on. The problem for me was restriction. Telling myself i couldnt have certain food groups and feeling guilty and deprived was horrible. Ive been on mfp for nearly a year, absolutely sustainable for me. Calorie in-calorie out has been the ONLY thing that has worked for me. Good luck8
-
tammyd_white 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.
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.
Yeah, typos happen.
I see someone else already covered the 2nd one you cited but the first one you cited actually said both groups lost about the same but the ones on higher protein retained more muscle (which is pretty much what you'd expect).
ETA: I have nothing against keto - lost most of my weight using keto and it worked great to suppress my appetite. But I lost weight because I ate less calories than I burned and lost at the predicted rate.13 -
tammyd_white wrote: »
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.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/989
The attached article is one of the leading researchers at the NIH. The 3500 calorie rule is often misapplied and doesn't consider all of the contributing factors that influence loss rate. Since we don't live in a metabolic chamber, and most studies dont' use them because they are hella expensive, we can, at best, take an approximation over a specific period of time. In free living conditions, you not only have to control for human error (which is been demonstrated up to 400 calories off), but also have to factor spontaneous changes in NEAT and/or TEA. This doesn't even consider any adjustments due to adaptive thermogenesis.
Secondly, while it's true that protein and fats can be converted to glucose through glucenogenesis, it doesn't mean it will. It's a demand driven action by the body. The below blog has good information on it from a keto follower.
http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2017/07/gluconeogenesis.html
10 -
Okay, I haven't read all of the comments but the general theme seems to be eat more carbs. To answer some questions...I have PCOS and carbs are not my friend (weight wise and for medical reasons). I do have insulin resistance and high blood pressure but all of my other numbers (obviously excluding weight) are near perfect. I've tried eating within a calorie deficit while still eating carbs, glycemic index based diet, and weight watchers - all with limited to no success. This is the first diet change that actually works.
Thanks for the advice, encouragement, and sharing your experiences! You've all been so kind and empathetic. I'll definitely finish reading the comments and make adjustments until my body acclimates. I hadn't really thought of the PCOS and low-carb lifestyle conflicting with each other - I'll do some research. This will be easier to handle now that I don't feel as if I've hit a dead end.3 -
Don't know if anybody has posted this or not, but you might also check into this group - lots of knowledge and info and lots of friendly helpful people:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group1 -
How low carb are you going? I tried Atkins once and was completely miserable. Not for me. My body rebelled, and there was no way I could live that way forever.
I've since gone to a 'lower carb', higher protein diet. I keep my carbs under 100/day and aim for 90g+ of protein. It works. I'm down 55 pounds, and don't feel deprived. I eat pizza, drink wine, etc. In moderation. My goal is to do something I can live with.
It sounds like the plan you're not is not working for you. I would try modifying it by increasing carbs to see how you feel.
Good luck!1 -
Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »Okay, I haven't read all of the comments but the general theme seems to be eat more carbs. To answer some questions...I have PCOS and carbs are not my friend (weight wise and for medical reasons). I do have insulin resistance and high blood pressure but all of my other numbers (obviously excluding weight) are near perfect. I've tried eating within a calorie deficit while still eating carbs, glycemic index based diet, and weight watchers - all with limited to no success. This is the first diet change that actually works.
Thanks for the advice, encouragement, and sharing your experiences! You've all been so kind and empathetic. I'll definitely finish reading the comments and make adjustments until my body acclimates. I hadn't really thought of the PCOS and low-carb lifestyle conflicting with each other - I'll do some research. This will be easier to handle now that I don't feel as if I've hit a dead end.
You can probably ignore most of the comments.. mainly just bicker, lol.
How much protein, carbs and fiber are you eating (i might have missed that) and how many calories? Being that you have IR and have PCOS, low carb or Keto is going to be the more optimal diets for you. The specific carb range might need some tapering to see what is ideal for you.5 -
Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »Okay, I haven't read all of the comments but the general theme seems to be eat more carbs. To answer some questions...I have PCOS and carbs are not my friend (weight wise and for medical reasons). I do have insulin resistance and high blood pressure but all of my other numbers (obviously excluding weight) are near perfect. I've tried eating within a calorie deficit while still eating carbs, glycemic index based diet, and weight watchers - all with limited to no success. This is the first diet change that actually works.
Thanks for the advice, encouragement, and sharing your experiences! You've all been so kind and empathetic. I'll definitely finish reading the comments and make adjustments until my body acclimates. I hadn't really thought of the PCOS and low-carb lifestyle conflicting with each other - I'll do some research. This will be easier to handle now that I don't feel as if I've hit a dead end.
Disclaimer before my reply:
I'm not in any way offering any medical advice or think everyone should do what I did, I'm only sharing my experience and my thought process regarding this issue.
I have PCOS and the number 1 reason I decided to lose weight was insulin resistance and prediabetes. I tried low carb and got all kinds of negative reactions to it and was extremely hungry all the time. PCOS is a condition that greatly benefits from weight loss, so does insulin resistance. I decided not doing something that helps somewhat in favor of doing something that is known to greatly help would be the best course of action, because a diet where I'm also hungry is unsustainable and no matter how much I want to do "everything perfectly", sometimes it's smarter to pick the route that helps the most for the longest time possible.
At first I still watched carbs, but by loosely following the diabetic exchange system, which is lowER in carbs, but not exactly very low carb. I ate at the higher end of it and gave myself a bit of a carb leeway here and there on top of that. I thought if this system is good enough for those who are already diabetic, it would be good enough for me, not yet diabetic, and weight loss would possibly lower my blood sugar without further intervention. Note that low carb is done for management, not for potential remission. Only weight loss promises potential remission.
I was right. I was able to lose a lot of weight because I picked a diet that I could sustain and wasn't hungry on. I have lost 117 pounds so far eating a higher carb diet. People with PCOS can lose weight eating carbs. The number on the scale is not as steadily declining as it is on low carb (hormones cause otherworldly fluctuations and insulin resistance does weird things with water weight), but I have lost as expected when I average my loss over months. At one point along the way my blood sugar normalized and I was no longer prediabetic, purely due to weight loss (at around 60-70 pounds lost). I can now consume carbs without worrying about anything and I no longer follow the diabetic exchange.
Not everyone is as lucky to go into remission, but I just want you to know that there is a possibility that this will happen. To keep my blood sugar down I need to work very hard on developing habits around food and activity that allow me to maintain my weight, because I know for a fact if I regain my blood sugar will shoot right up. Eating in a way that doesn't leave me constantly hungry and feeling like *kitten* is a very important part of that, because I don't think I can live the rest of my life white knuckling just because there is an "optimal" way of eating for one aspect of my condition (which is bad for another aspect of it, since I'm a cortisol subtype PCOS and overstressing is not good - being constantly hungry and physical side effects are quite stressful). I believe optimizing all aspects and personalizing it to be a lifelong system is a much better approach than a cut and dry "this diet for this condition".9 -
[quote="
How much protein, carbs and fiber are you eating (i might have missed that) and how many calories? Being that you have IR and have PCOS, low carb or Keto is going to be the more optimal diets for you. The specific carb range might need some tapering to see what is ideal for you.
I usually get around 20 carbs a day, that's what my doctor suggested. Not sure about the rest - I'm not always able to log for super accurate results so I focus on carb count on the days I can't get to a computer.0 -
Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »Okay, I haven't read all of the comments but the general theme seems to be eat more carbs. To answer some questions...I have PCOS and carbs are not my friend (weight wise and for medical reasons). I do have insulin resistance and high blood pressure but all of my other numbers (obviously excluding weight) are near perfect. I've tried eating within a calorie deficit while still eating carbs, glycemic index based diet, and weight watchers - all with limited to no success. This is the first diet change that actually works.
Thanks for the advice, encouragement, and sharing your experiences! You've all been so kind and empathetic. I'll definitely finish reading the comments and make adjustments until my body acclimates. I hadn't really thought of the PCOS and low-carb lifestyle conflicting with each other - I'll do some research. This will be easier to handle now that I don't feel as if I've hit a dead end.
PCOS and low-carbing do not necessarily conflict with each other, there are many women with PCOS who find it beneficial. Also people with insulin resistance. My recommendation would be to first examine how much you are eating (you never mentioned a calorie intake, which could cause some of the issues you mentioned), and to make sure you are getting enough sodium, which is needed for a low carb diet (and also could be causing some of those issues), if you are still considering a low carb diet. Also, remember there is a large range to a low carb diet (I believe up to 150g per day), and you might just need to find out what works for you as far as the ideal number.2 -
Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »Okay, I haven't read all of the comments but the general theme seems to be eat more carbs. To answer some questions...I have PCOS and carbs are not my friend (weight wise and for medical reasons). I do have insulin resistance and high blood pressure but all of my other numbers (obviously excluding weight) are near perfect. I've tried eating within a calorie deficit while still eating carbs, glycemic index based diet, and weight watchers - all with limited to no success. This is the first diet change that actually works.
Thanks for the advice, encouragement, and sharing your experiences! You've all been so kind and empathetic. I'll definitely finish reading the comments and make adjustments until my body acclimates. I hadn't really thought of the PCOS and low-carb lifestyle conflicting with each other - I'll do some research. This will be easier to handle now that I don't feel as if I've hit a dead end.
How aggressive is your deficit?
And to what degree are you cutting carbohydrates?
There are women out there with PCOS who benefit without drastically cutting carbs.
You might do well merely limiting the more starchy ones and loading up on vegetables and keeping your carbs to around 125-150 grams a day. This will allow for somewhat more substantial veggies like winter squashes, turnips, carrots and things like that while maybe giving you some more energy while still being considered low carb.
There's also room in that amount for fruits like berries.2 -
tammyd_white wrote: »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.
So children will just naturally eat more when they're hungry, but what about adults who want to add weight? If the Paleo diet just automatically puts your body at an equilibrium, are you arguing that the diet itself knows when an adult wants to lose or add weight and adjusts your appetite accordingly?
Is the argument that everyone who is doing Paleo has somehow obtained the ideal weight for their body and if they haven't, it's a sign they aren't doing it right?0 -
I like low carb, prefer it because my body doesn't handle carbs well it equals immediate weight gain. I stay full by prepping a lot of veggies for snacking and I supplement with protein from Nashua Nutrition or Proteinwise.
If you're interested, here's some protein sites that are good for lowcarbers: http://passionofaprincess.com/living-low-carb-lifestyle/8 -
Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »[quote="
How much protein, carbs and fiber are you eating (i might have missed that) and how many calories? Being that you have IR and have PCOS, low carb or Keto is going to be the more optimal diets for you. The specific carb range might need some tapering to see what is ideal for you.
I usually get around 20 carbs a day, that's what my doctor suggested. Not sure about the rest - I'm not always able to log for super accurate results so I focus on carb count on the days I can't get to a computer.
You might find that low carbing is beneficial but you don't need to be so low. I did around 100 g for a while and then 100-120 g and found that really comfortable. When I dropped it to around 35 net g (which is ketosis for me), it was fine, I never had any problems with it, but there were no noticeable benefits justifying the (for me) restriction on things like fruit.
Disclaimer, I am not IR, but lots of people here who are IR, T2D, and/or PCOS do well on diets other than keto.
Since you do feel hungry and are having some issues, and since 20 g is really super, duper low (I could not get in the vegetables I feel are important on that, if I included also some nuts (which are healthy), dairy, so on -- I almost always eat more than 20 g carbs in just veg), I'd suggest maybe trying somewhat more carbs (NOT dumping low carb entirely), making sure they are nutrient and/or fiber rich carbs (more of a variety of veg, fruit, legumes, nuts, whole grains, whole foods like tubers in moderate servings -- of course you will still be limited in amounts to some degree), and -- important -- watching calories a bit more strictly.
It's common to dump water when switching to super low carb (or any low carb or calorie deficit diet, but especially a super low carb diet), and that can both explain a significant immediate weight loss and some of the bad feelings, as you also lose electrolytes and can get out of whack. Adding back in some salt and making sure veg are included in good amounts (potassium) can help, but that would not explain the hunger.
Another thing, not knowing your prior diet, it's possible you have increased veg and fiber (which always seems weird since veg are carbs, but many weren't eating adequate veg BEFORE going low carb so increase them). That can be a stomach issue at first until you adjust (if this could be part of it I would not immediately increase foods with fiber).
Just some thoughts. You could also ask for a referral to a registered dietitian.
The low carb group is good too (it was linked above), but there you won't have the experiences like amusedmonkey's, from those who have tried other things and been successful. I'd read there, but here too.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Dani_Cali_Carolina wrote: »Okay, I haven't read all of the comments but the general theme seems to be eat more carbs. To answer some questions...I have PCOS and carbs are not my friend (weight wise and for medical reasons). I do have insulin resistance and high blood pressure but all of my other numbers (obviously excluding weight) are near perfect. I've tried eating within a calorie deficit while still eating carbs, glycemic index based diet, and weight watchers - all with limited to no success. This is the first diet change that actually works.
Thanks for the advice, encouragement, and sharing your experiences! You've all been so kind and empathetic. I'll definitely finish reading the comments and make adjustments until my body acclimates. I hadn't really thought of the PCOS and low-carb lifestyle conflicting with each other - I'll do some research. This will be easier to handle now that I don't feel as if I've hit a dead end.
How aggressive is your deficit?
And to what degree are you cutting carbohydrates?
There are women out there with PCOS who benefit without drastically cutting carbs.
You might do well merely limiting the more starchy ones and loading up on vegetables and keeping your carbs to around 125-150 grams a day. This will allow for somewhat more substantial veggies like winter squashes, turnips, carrots and things like that while maybe giving you some more energy while still being considered low carb.
There's also room in that amount for fruits like berries.
This resembles me, although I'm still highly dubious about that PCOS diagnosis of mine (other than when an exploding cyst tries to kill me). Anyhoo, when I am overweight, even mildly, I definitely have some IR going on. I was fine losing on around ~100g of carbs a day. Now that I'm at a healthy weight, I can eat all the carbs with glee and abandon (within my calorie goal
). When I'm at a deficit, particularly if not very active, I will still tend towards lower carb, but that's purely because I place more importance on protein and fats, so carbs is just what's left over once those goals are met. At maintenance, lots more room for carbs, so carbs are consequently higher. 3 -
Look into Keto not just low carb! I've steadily lost weight and I'm at 13 pounds lost at 4 weeks. I feel like I eat quite a bit. I do miss the super sweet food and need to start experimenting with recipes. Good luck3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions