Found a diet that works

100_PROOF_

bustercrabby wrote: »

cheese60 wrote: »

Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I should change my goal from weight loss to fat weight loss and muscle weight gain. It also sounds like while I'm trying to lose fat weight, I need to do more to sustain muscle weight. I'd hate to get to 167 only to find my body fat percent is still too high.

Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I feel like this change could be saving me from going too far down the wrong path.

May I say that in my opinion cheese60, you are going about this the wrong way. There are many types of calories, and counting them should be secondary to closely watching your carb and sugar intake. And yes, eating too many carbs, which as we all know convert to sugar, is a real menace to good health. Besides your body burning excess carbs before actual body fat, they are responsible for your body producing too much insulin.

Carbs are the real enemy of healthy living. Fat is not. Fat is good. It's what fuels the brain. And as you have indicated, getting enough protein is essential to avoiding muscle mass loss.

A diet low in net carbs and high in fat and protein (sound familiar?) is naturally very low in sugar.

Today's food pyramid is inverted and is responsible for the worldwide obesity/diabetes epidemic. Fat should be at the bottom, not the top. Carbs should be at the top, not the bottom. Once you invert the pyramid, things change dramatically. Your body will start to normalize and begin a very slow and steady return to what it should be.

I am not a dietician, nor do I pretend to be.

This is not factual information. Most of what you said here is misinformation and incorrect.

lynn_glenmont

cheese60 wrote: »

(weight I measure) * (calories google says this food has per 100 calories) / 100

You can stop wasting your time with Google. All food has 100 calories per 100 calories.

lynn_glenmont

AnvilHead wrote: »

bustercrabby wrote: »

...There are many types of calories...

A calorie is a unit of heat required to raise one gram of water one degree celsius in temperature at a pressure of one atmosphere. That's the only type of "calorie" there is.

I suppose if one were inclined to be generous, one could say there are two types of calories: calories and "food" calories (aka Calories or kilocalories). But I wouldn't call two "many."

kpsyche

It's best to use kilojoules instead of kilocalories because it's about 4 times more accurate.

lynn_glenmont

kpsyche wrote: »

It's best to use kilojoules instead of kilocalories because it's about 4 times more accurate.

Since a potential estimating error of 1 kcal (or 5 kcal, or even 10 kcal) is not something I'm going to worry about in logging, I fail to see how the illusion being able to be accurate to the kilojoule is going to be helpful.

AnvilHead

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

AnvilHead wrote: »

bustercrabby wrote: »

...There are many types of calories...

A calorie is a unit of heat required to raise one gram of water one degree celsius in temperature at a pressure of one atmosphere. That's the only type of "calorie" there is.

I suppose if one were inclined to be generous, one could say there are two types of calories: calories and "food" calories (aka Calories or kilocalories). But I wouldn't call two "many."

Yeah, but technically it's a naming convention and they're two separate things - a calorie and a Calorie/kilocalorie. Whenever food calories are being discussed, it's the latter.

It's actually kind of an aberration, IMO - they didn't resort to a meter and a Meter for meter/kilometer.

NovusDies

I wish these fat peddlers would also understand that we are not all the same. I tried a LCHF diet (<55g of carbs) for a week early in my diet as an experiment. I struggled to eat that way and my body was unappreciative in a couple of ways. I might be able to transition slow enough to get past the physical ailments but eating would still be for nourishment not pleasure so it would be like forcing medicine down. Why would I want to live that way?