Disappointing Realization of Maintenance Calories

13

Replies

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    goatg wrote: »
    1- your stomach adjusts
    2- eat out/drink less often
    3- track macros/calories until you eat intuitively
    4- be more lightly active (walking, standing); it adds up


    I find maintenance super easy. It’s losing that’s damnation for me

    Same here. But many people get geared up for the weight loss process but don't effectively plan for what maintenance will look like. So, they struggle and often regain.
  • elisa123gal
    elisa123gal Posts: 4,333 Member
    That is why I never count calories and restrict them severely.. your stuck because your metabolism is so slow and adjusted to the low calories. So you either diet all the time or regain even more.

    I'd start eating more and moving more and adjust your system to allow for more food.
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    And, I never was "Insulin Resistant" as you are looking for a reason why this worked for me that is outside the norm.
    I was never outside of the normal BMI range, with no metabolic issues. I've been medically healthy my whole life, with an interest in fitness, nutrition, and overall health over decades. I wanted to lose weight to feel better, and to fit into my skinny jeans again. I didn't want to be overweight and old, with bad knees as a result. I found that after a certain age, losing fat was a much greater challenge than it was in my 20s and 30s. So I learned more about why that could be, and did not accept that "this is what happens to you after menopause".
    I see other women my age with the thickening middles and visceral fat deposits. That's what was happening to me as well. Now, for whatever reason, my waist is as it was in my 20s, and I am hardly starving myself. I credit my diet with a big part of that, because I feel so much better in every other way as well.

    Yes, in some countries people live on grains and starches. In others they thrive on seal meat and salmon with not a vegetable or fruit in sight. Or milk, beef, and blood. If you're going to cite cultural differences, please make sure to include the ones which may not align with your point of view.

    All calories are not created equal. We do not need grains to survive, nor thrive. They are cheaper than quality protein and fresh veg though, I'll give you that. My food bills are definitely higher eating this way, and that's a deterrent for many.
    But it isn't because eating this way is somehow radical or unhealthy.


  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    For the record, here are my "average" macros over the last few weeks, this is the range I try to stay in:
    Carbs (total) 76-150g (predominantly fresh veggies with small amounts of fresh fruit, rice and potato.)
    Protein 89-126g (fresh beef, chicken, fish, cooked at home.)
    Fats 65-89g (Olive oil, coconut oil, real butter, fat on meats)
    Average NET calories runs about 1600 or so. I'm 5' 7".
    Does that really seem so extreme to you guys?
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    Here is a link to various studies which might be of interest. 23 of them. Please read the conclusions about insulin sensitivity, cholesterol, triglycerides, etc. Because these are probably more important than pounds lost.
    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section1
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    I find it amazing that a post stating basically that it’s easier to maintain on a low calorie budget if you focus on nutritionally dense instead of calorie dense foods gets nothing but “disagree” here. C’mon, people. Can we get off the “all calories are equal when trying to lose weight” horse for long enough to admit that for MOST people, a big chunk of lean meat is more filling than a single bite of fatty hamburger? Can anyone here be honest enough for two seconds to admit that?

    It’s not courting orthorexia to admit that a diet full of takeout and fast food probably isn’t the easiest way to stick to a 1200 calorie budget. 1200 calories goes fast. Those calories have to count, or it’s really not much food at all. When carefully curated, 1200 calories can equal three modest meals and a snack, and contain enough nutrition to keep someone healthy. Or it can be a single side of large fries plus a soft drink. I know which one is more likely to make me feel better, long term.

    I’m not seeing anyone advocating banning fries completely. Long term, most people will stay sane eating the fries once in a blue moon. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But on an everyday basis, it’s easier to eat low calorie if you eat nutritionally dense foods.

    Usually I find your posts very reasonable. But, honestly, I'm confused by this one. Where did anyone advocate for takeout or fast food or mention fries or fatty hamburgers?

    Indeed, the reference to that -- eating one meal a day of pickle juice and lunch meat -- seemed like an enormous strawman to me. I've never seen something like that advocated (although I suppose it would be low carb).
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    edited December 2019
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    I find it amazing that a post stating basically that it’s easier to maintain on a low calorie budget if you focus on nutritionally dense instead of calorie dense foods gets nothing but “disagree” here. C’mon, people. Can we get off the “all calories are equal when trying to lose weight” horse for long enough to admit that for MOST people, a big chunk of lean meat is more filling than a single bite of fatty hamburger? Can anyone here be honest enough for two seconds to admit that?

    It’s not courting orthorexia to admit that a diet full of takeout and fast food probably isn’t the easiest way to stick to a 1200 calorie budget. 1200 calories goes fast. Those calories have to count, or it’s really not much food at all. When carefully curated, 1200 calories can equal three modest meals and a snack, and contain enough nutrition to keep someone healthy. Or it can be a single side of large fries plus a soft drink. I know which one is more likely to make me feel better, long term.

    I’m not seeing anyone advocating banning fries completely. Long term, most people will stay sane eating the fries once in a blue moon. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But on an everyday basis, it’s easier to eat low calorie if you eat nutritionally dense foods.

    Usually I find your posts very reasonable. But, honestly, I'm confused by this one. Where did anyone advocate for takeout or fast food or mention fries or fatty hamburgers?

    Indeed, the reference to that -- eating one meal a day of pickle juice and lunch meat -- seemed like an enormous strawman to me. I've never seen something like that advocated (although I suppose it would be low carb).

    What I see is, currently, 6 disagrees on a perfectly reasonable post and not a single person (except @cmriverside who seems not to have read it and to be responding to things it doesn’t say) making a reasonable argument about why they disagree.

    Carbs are easy to eat in excess and easy to cut. Over half of Americans are insulin resistant, not healthy. Advocating keto is unnecessary but this poster is making an argument more like “maybe don’t eat the whole bread basket at Olive Garden with every meal” which seems a pretty darned moderate argument to me, to attract six disagrees. I think people are hitting disagree by reflex because of the worship of “all calories are equal.” It becomes ridiculous.
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    Thank you, rheddmobile. For reading what I actually wrote and responding to that, instead of what inferring things I never even thought, much less wrote.
    Somebody up there ^^^ responded to this statement: "Insulin leads to fat storage regardless of calories" which I never said. Restating what I said incorrectly and then arguing with that doesn't further the conversation at all.

    And what has also been largely overlooked is my point about overall health, not just weight loss. When it comes to health, a calorie is more than just a calorie. Our body responds differently to fats/proteins/carbs. We all know you can lose weight eating nothing but lard and jelly beans, if you restrict calories enough. That's not what I'm getting at here.

    For me, a diet based on carbs means that I have very few calories left over for the protein I seem to need, and the fats that keep me satiated and smooth out my blood glucose fluctuations. All those carbs make me bloated and affect my cognition and energy. So, I cut carbs in favor of QUALITY proteins, fresh produce, and full-fat dairy. I eat very little junk, although I like it as much as the next person. Why people think there is something "wrong" about this is confusing to me.

    I keep saying that this is what helped me at my age. And "Your results may vary".
    But what's amazing are the number of people jumping on me, making assumptions, who may well have never even tried this approach, that I'm aware of.

    I say, "Don't knock it til you've tried it". If what you're doing is working great for you, "why fix it if it ain't broke?", as they say. But if you're struggling, particularly if you're a post-menopausal woman struggling to lose those last few pounds, who may need to address Type II diabetes or that afternoon slump, who is drinking diet sodas for the needed caffeine jolt, and feeling hungry because you haven't eaten in three hours, this might be worth a try.

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,620 Member
    edited December 2019
    ThinnerLiz wrote: »
    mmapgs---I have not "demonized" anything. Please don't put words in my mouth, nor cherry-pick my comments for single points out of context, and then put me in the situation of having to explain that's not what I said, nor what I meant.
    Please read my entire comment and take into account the disclaimers I continue to make. "This is MY experience", "others may thrive on different diets", "I love bread and pasta", "healthy fats"... "see what works for you"...etc.

    All I've said is that it's possible that EXCESS carbohydrates may be part of the problem for many people. I specifically state that I see no personal benefit in Keto that can't be had on a lower carb diet. I also said that I enjoy all those starchy foods---IN MODERATION. They are simply not the foundation of my diet. I use them like a condiment; sparingly.

    I never said once said one "doesn't need fat", that we can live on only lean protein and veg. (Well, we CAN live easily on protein with natural accompanying fats, with some carbs, or no carbs, as many have found.) It is also a fact that we do not "need" grains nor starches to be absolutely healthy. But we absolutely DO need fat in our diets or we will die. It may well be the only macro-nutrient we actually must have for survival, but I haven't learned enough about that yet.

    The fact is, the body does not respond to all calories equally. Carbohydrates spike insulin more than proteins or fats. Having excess insulin in the blood causes weight gain and Type II diabetes. This is not news anymore. It's why diabetics need to count carbs and use insulin. Yes, protein can ultimately drive up insulin as well, but the effects are blunted.

    NO ONE is saying you "shouldn't" eat and enjoy your carbs if you are feeling great and achieving your goals. And even if you aren't, you are entitled to eat however you wish.

    Some people thrive on this kind of diet. Others, like me, are made ill as a result.
    I still eat and enjoy mine, but in much smaller amounts. I share my experience and knowledge here in case it might benefit anyone else. I found that being post-menopausal and almost 60, reducing the amount of starchy carbs I ate helped me lose weight more easily without ever feeling hungry, and a lot of the physical issues I was having, particularly with blood sugar fluctuations, went away. This isn't a made up story, with some kind of secret reason why it worked for me in particular.
    It worked because there is science behind it. I'm not hungry because my blood glucose and insulin levels aren't peaking and troughing throughout the day. Fat is satiating, as is protein. It's all very common-sense.

    I don't understand why this is contentious for some people. I'm not out there, trying to take your carbs away. If what you're doing is working for you, fantastic. If it's not, perhaps there is something else to try. What I'm doing it working great for me. There is a lot of science to support my personal experience, if you care to look. All I suggested that if people want to see if it helps, to give it a try. It's not Heroin or anything...

    As I said though, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, nor to make anyone feel bad about their food choices! This is just information; information which is NEUTRAL.

    I'm not arguing with your personal diet: It sounds really nutritious!

    I'm not mostly arguing with your advice about choosing satiating foods and cutting out foods that aren't filling and add relatively less nutrition: That's good advice!

    We are mostly arguing with your representations about how the human body works: It's simplistic, and not helpful, and in the final analysis not accurate. It's in line with a good bit of carb-scare publicity that's been current, and those sources have studies and footnotes, but they're cherry picked and incomplete. That's the source of the disagreement.

    To the first bolded item: I think you might find protein (and in fact a particular complement of amino acids) to be pretty important for survival, in the long term.

    To the second bolded: That's exactly the source of my disagreement (even though, as I said, I didn't click "disagree" . . . though I may start, pretty soon. ;) ).

    Congratulations, sincerely, on finding a way of eating that's healthy, nutritious, and works well for you personally. May we all do likewise! :flowerforyou:
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited December 2019
    To be more specific about what I disagree with and why I don't read the post as solely saying "cut out what's easiest for you to cut out, focus on satiety, and eat a nutrient dense diet" (all of which I would agree with and think most would):
    ThinnerLiz wrote: »
    I believe whatever benefits there may be for a Ketogenic diet may be had with a lower carb diet. The biggest boon for me was satiety. I was/am rarely hungry because I don’t require a steady supply of carbs every few hours. This allows me to wait until I have good options to eat and a I’m not at the mercy of whatever is available.

    As a personal anecdote I think the above is fine. To the extent it is intended to suggest benefits TO ALL from lower carb I think that's false (I tend to eat somewhat lower carb when losing and moderate carb -- 150ish -- on maintenance, and my maintenance as a woman at 5'3 is around 2000, but I don't think that's what all will feel best at, and I find I feel just as good when I do eat higher carb for a time, as I do when I cut back on animal products and rely more on beans/lentils for protein).

    I also think that it's not that hard to "not require a steady supply of carbs every few hours" however many carbs one eats. Maybe the poster did not mean to suggest it, but there seems to be a view in the low carb world that if one eats non low carb it's impossible not to be eating constantly, and that's not true.
    Personally, I would never be interested in things like OneMealADay made of low-quality lunch meats and pickle juice, as I’ve seen some do.

    Like I said, this seems like a strawman to me, and also would seem to be a low carb diet, so a weird attack on the non low carb folks (and I read it as suggesting that if one is not low carb one doesn't care about nutrition). Maybe I was incorrect in that.
    Not for me. I like real, nutritious foods. Not going to waste precious calories on Easy-Mac and hot dogs unless I’m having a junk food treat, which I do on occasion.

    Again, this seems to be associating non low carb eating with not caring about nutrition.

    ***
    I feel great eating this way, and my skin is glowing. No carb comas nor crashes, and my body composition is changing on its own without the bloat that too many processed carbs can bring.

    Again, associating carbs with bad health, when many carbs are nutrient dense (and aren't particularly more processed than processed fats or processed proteins or -- of course -- the mixed fat and carb foods that get so often wrongly characterized as "carbs" in our carb demonizing world.
    Carbs are not the enemy. But too many refined starches are just like sugar to the body. They drive up insulin, which causes the body to store fat. Exactly the opposite of what we want.

    Fat storage is caused by excess cals, regardless of the macro, and as I noted before the body preferentially will store FAT as fat when available. So if you eat a typical SAD overly high cal diet you will be turning the fat you eat into fat, not the carbs. That doesn't mean FAT is the problem -- it's the excess cals and likely the lack of a sufficiently sating diet -- but it is biologically how it works. You don't gain fat from carbs in a deficit or at maintenance cals.
    There is solid science behind it, and as a skeptic, I’m living proof. The idea that we need 6+ servings a day of grains is counterproductive, from a metabolic, weight-loss point of view. 200+ grams of carbs per day just keeps the insulin flowing.

    I also don't think we NEED 6+ servings of grains (and I think that's largely old advice and that people misunderstand what a serving is anyway), but to the extent this is supposed to mean that one can't lose or maintain on 200 g of carbs, again it is not true. (I don't eat 6+ servings of grains because I don't like most grains that much and would be wasting my cals. But it's also why the idea that grains would uniquely cause me to overeat is false. I'm simply not going to overeat grains if I am at all mindful. They aren't some evil weight-gain causing food. And whole grains can be sating and nutrient dense for many and in many cases they can be part of a sating and nutrient dense meal -- like the pasta with shrimp and lots of veg I mentioned before.)
    The only way to know if this works for you is to try it! Try a few days, or a month, with only fresh veg for carbs and see how you feel.

    Why tell people to eat a different diet when they are happy with how they are eating? And only veg for carbs cuts out fruit and beans/lentils and thus foods that I personally think are quite nutritious.

    Is there anything wrong with trying it for a while? No, I did myself (and found I had to eat FEWER veg than normal to do keto, which for me is bad, as was eating more meat than I normally do, and fat beyond my desire), but it was an interesting experiment. What I object to is the claim that cutting out all carbs but veg = a healthier way of eating, that's untrue and not a sensible approach to nutrition.
    Unless you’re a serious athlete just burning up those carbs like crazy, they may just be making your weight loss a lot harder than it needs to be, and we want everyone here to succeed.

    Again, carbs don't cause weight gain/prohibit weight loss. This again sounds like she's saying it is carbs, not cals.
    And if the concern is that they aren't sating, satiety is personal. For me (and many others) a variety of higher carb foods (I'd mention beans and lentils and fruit and potatoes) are sating, or are when included in a meal of mixed macros (and ideally lots of veg!).
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    And thank you, cmriverside, for taking the time to thoughtfully read and respond.

    For the record, the 150 grams of carbs would be a high day for me. Some days I might even go up to 220, but that's very rare, and only if it's some kind of special occasion or I've been doing a ton of exercise/feel depleted. I feel best and most energetic around 70-100 gram, most days.
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Indeed, the reference to that -- eating one meal a day of pickle juice and lunch meat -- seemed like an enormous strawman to me. I've never seen something like that advocated (although I suppose it would be low carb).

    This sort of eating is often touted in Keto groups. Some go zero carb, some only eat meat. According to them, they feel great and are healthy. Okay. I'm not going to argue with them, because I'm not in their shoes.
    I tried Keto and often cycle in and out (not intentionally, but since I eat dinner rather early and often don't have my first meal until mid-morning, I'm in Ketosis during that time, particularly if I exercise.)

    I felt great, no cravings, no hunger. Great energy.
    BUT--I had issues with electrolytes. In the Keto groups, they will tell you that you need a lot of sodium to balance the fact that your body is dropping water like crazy, and your kidneys are working hard. (I learned the hard way to stay close to a bathroom in the early phases because I had to pee a lot, like EVERY HOUR.)
    I mistakenly believed that after I got acclimated to this, my need for drinking salt water (literally) would diminish. "Not so", I was told. In order to not get a blinding headache and risk an electrolyte imbalance, I would need to keep my sodium at least 3,500 mg per day. Forever.
    Enter the "SHOT OF PICKLE JUICE WITH DIET PEPSI" with plate of lunch meat and hard-boiled eggs. I was told to keep my net carbs below 20--or "Bad Things Would Happen".

    When I asked why, if I was eating about 50 net carbs, and feeling great, losing weight, and all was well, I would want to cut that to 20? (You would think I'd asked why they don't eat their own young! ;) ) Well, then I'd be "Kicked Out of Ketosis!!!!!!". And... then? Couldn't I... just get back in later? (The answer is: YES.)
    I asked questions like "Are you saying you need to be in Ketosis to burn off your own bodyfat?" and "Is it possible that some people can reap the benefits of a low carb diet without being in Ketosis?" Crickets. After some nasty comments, of course.

    When something makes very little sense when examined from all angles, I ditch it. Staying in Ketosis made no sense for me. Eating lower carb does.

    My point here is that even those Keto folks with their pickle juice and hot dogs are wedded to their Way Of Eating, and good for them. I can't see that as healthy, no matter how hard I try. I only suggest that people open their minds to trying different methods, and learn that it's not the same for everyone, in terms of what type of eating works best for them. It's not about "Being Right" or winning people over to my way of thinking. I'm just passing on information.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    ThinnerLiz wrote: »
    And thank you, cmriverside, for taking the time to thoughtfully read and respond.

    For the record, the 150 grams of carbs would be a high day for me. Some days I might even go up to 220, but that's very rare, and only if it's some kind of special occasion or I've been doing a ton of exercise/feel depleted. I feel best and most energetic around 70-100 gram, most days.

    Great! You've done what many people should do. You've experimented and found what is optimum for you.
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    For the record, I never said that "carbs were bad", or "insulin" is bad, or "carbs make you fat". That was all inferred.

    What I said was: For some people, a diet lower in carbohydrate might be beneficial (health and weight loss) because of how their bodies react to large amounts of carbs.
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    Yet, it's not a statement that I made, that "carbohydrates cause fat storage".

    Carbs do cause greater rises in blood glucose, which trigger more insulin to be released. That can inhibit fat metabolism. Fat and protein have a negligible effect on circulating blood glucose although they can also lead to a rise in insulin. How much of that is a problem (or not) would depend on the individual, and the circumstances. Are they in a caloric deficit? Are they running a marathon? Are they glycogen-depleted? In Ketosis? At risk for metabolic disease?

    For those who are pre-diabetic or have Type II diabetes this would most certainly be an issue. Obviously, we need insulin, as it plays an important role in metabolism. It's hardly the enemy, and neither are carbs.
    Insulin itself doesn't seem to be the issue as much as higher circulating blood glucose can be. But it's more complicated than that, I agree. I apologize if I sounded like I was over-simplifying things.

    People who are perfectly healthy and feeling well can get by on all kinds of diets. As I've said from the beginning.

    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    ThinnerLiz wrote: »
    For the record, I never said that "carbs were bad", or "insulin" is bad, or "carbs make you fat". That was all inferred.

    What I said was: For some people, a diet lower in carbohydrate might be beneficial (health and weight loss) because of how their bodies react to large amounts of carbs.

    I think you need to go back and reread your posts. You stated multiple times that insulin causes fat storage and once your stated to caused obesity and T2D. Based on the posts, I'm not the only one who interpreted your posts this way.

    It's how I read this statement (from an earlier post in this thread by the user): "Carbs drive up insulin, which effects blood sugar, and ultimately, fat storage."

    It sounds like a statement that carbohydrates cause fat storage.

    That was my take as well, and similarly the statement about 200 g of carbs being bad because it keeps the insulin flowing.

    I wouldn't have bothered going through it in detail except that another poster claimed that the disagrees (none of which came from me) must be disagreements with advice to eat a more nutrient dense diet. I don't personally think that eating 200 g of carbs must mean a less nutrient dense diet than one with 70 g of carbs. High and lower carb diets can both be extremely nutrient dense and not nutrient dense at all. For me, cutting back BOTH fat and carbs were part of my "focus on more satiating and nutrient dense foods and cut cals without feeling like you are sacrificing anything" strategy.

    With the clarifications I do think people are largely in agreement, and of course I know that for some eating fewer carbs can be helpful for satiety reasons.

    Maybe I'm weird, but I don't think my carb percentage when gaining was particularly high. I do think I ate less protein and more carbs and fat than I did when losing, and that I was less active than I should have been.

    When I look at periods where I've gained weight, I think it's always because my fat intake has crept up. It's not carbohydrates. This is probably because the carbohydrates I eat are pretty nutrient dense and I personally find them very filling. They're also pretty visible on the plate, where the fat I eat is more "invisible" (it's harder to notice an extra tablespoon of oil spread out across a whole dish and I'm not someone who is really satiated by extra fat in a meal).

    It comes back to the bottom line that looking at what you're eating and making adjustments from there is usually going to be way more helpful than making changes based on abstract concepts. If I was planning my meals around the idea that carbohydrates aren't nutrient-dense and they cause fat storage, I'd be failing. And I'd be hungry!

    You can plan wonderfully nutritious and delicious low carbohydrate diets. You can also have some pretty bleak and non-nutrient rich ones. Same for higher carbohydrate ways of eating.

    What I don't see in this thread is anyone arguing that we shouldn't eat a nutrient-dense diet or that there is anything extreme about finding the way to do so that works best for your lifestyle and food preferences.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories