Low Carb Struggles
Options
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions