A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

amusedmonkey

There is one person and one person alone that is responsible for your health as an adult and that is you. Your health is your responsibility and if you become overweight or obese it is because you have neglected your health. You may have reasons for that neglect associated with job or family but that does not mean you did not neglect that one aspect of your life. You may have various medical conditions that make your metabolism different than that of the population (hyper- hypothyroidism, PCOS etc) but then it is your responsibility to recognize that, understand your maintenance level and adjust accordingly. Placing blame on something beyond your control is just acceptance that being unhealthy is somehow your destiny and that is NOT the kind of mindset that is going to improve your life.

Harsh reality time. If you are obese, if you are overweight, that is a self-infliicted condition regardless of what your life or medical situation may be. If there is a condition that forces you to gain weight to an unhealthy level regardless of what you do I have not heard of it.

There CAN be things outside of your control that make you scrawny, or skinny, or unhealthily thin...but there isn't such a thing for being overweight.

Actually, they believe PCOS to be genetic. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776334/) I listed this study because it is a case study and sites many other studies for those of you who are interested.
I'm not sure why being "scrawny" is outside of your control any more than an inherited gene defect the effects the way your body processes insulin. I know about this particular disease because I suffer from it. I also know how difficult it is to get a Dr. to take you seriously when you are seriously suffering and trying to lose weight and be healthy, but you aren't losing any weight because you have a disorder.

edited for clarity

I wasn't claiming that for someone with PCOS it is their fault that they have PCOS, of course having PCOS is beyond their control. That said being overweight is within their control, even if they have PCOS. PCOS has affects on your metabolism for sure but it doesn't mean you are doomed to be overweight. My ex had PCOS and she was quite fit, she just had to make sure she ate frequently enough or she would get groggy.

I totally agree with you. I have PCOS and if I had blamed it for my weight I wouldn't have been able to lose 90 pounds and counting. Having a medical condition only makes it more possible to gain faster and lose slower, it does not alter the gain/loss process itself - eating over/under maintenance. It's self-inflected, be it by continuously going over maintenance, not caring enough to watch/notice weight change, or by simply not looking for information about one's condition.

I'm actually ambivalent about this. Yes, what you put in your mouth is your choice.

But, when I was nursing and gaining weight, I was HUNGRY all the time. Like rob-a-bank hungry. Hunger is pretty compelling. It's designed to be. It can push somebody to take major risks for survival.

I really can't leave it at "it was your choice" for somebody eating the extra sandwich or three in that situation.

I see a lot of people with a lot of excuses. And I see a lot of successful people who, by self-report, have moved beyond them (me being one of them). There's probably more people with excuses than there are people who are being motivated by biological drives to unhealthy behaviors. But I know there are people in the second group too.

Believe me, I had (and have) these days when all I want is to eat nonstop. The solution could be as simple as making lower calorie and more filling choices combined with eating at maintenance until it passes. Excuses are just excuses. There is more than one way to tackle hurdles, victimizing oneself is not one of them.

These people may need to be more creative with their approach, seeking medical help if all fails, but it just boils down to choice. Do I choose to stay the same weight or lose it? This depends on which of the choices has more desirable consequences to me. If one chooses to stay fat because losing weight and maintaining it does not sound appealing or is not worth the effort, that's great! It's when these same people cry victim that annoys me.

Even after I chose to lose weight I went through a 5 month period about a year ago where I chose, consciously, to maintain for a while. At the time, maintenance sounded more appealing to me than losing weight and served my goals better because I was going through some rough times. Rough times did not "force" me to press pause, choosing to focus on one aspect of my life more than the other did. And that's fine. I knew the reasons and the consequences and I willingly chose to go that route.

likitisplit

There is one person and one person alone that is responsible for your health as an adult and that is you. Your health is your responsibility and if you become overweight or obese it is because you have neglected your health. You may have reasons for that neglect associated with job or family but that does not mean you did not neglect that one aspect of your life. You may have various medical conditions that make your metabolism different than that of the population (hyper- hypothyroidism, PCOS etc) but then it is your responsibility to recognize that, understand your maintenance level and adjust accordingly. Placing blame on something beyond your control is just acceptance that being unhealthy is somehow your destiny and that is NOT the kind of mindset that is going to improve your life.

Harsh reality time. If you are obese, if you are overweight, that is a self-infliicted condition regardless of what your life or medical situation may be. If there is a condition that forces you to gain weight to an unhealthy level regardless of what you do I have not heard of it.

There CAN be things outside of your control that make you scrawny, or skinny, or unhealthily thin...but there isn't such a thing for being overweight.

Actually, they believe PCOS to be genetic. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776334/) I listed this study because it is a case study and sites many other studies for those of you who are interested.
I'm not sure why being "scrawny" is outside of your control any more than an inherited gene defect the effects the way your body processes insulin. I know about this particular disease because I suffer from it. I also know how difficult it is to get a Dr. to take you seriously when you are seriously suffering and trying to lose weight and be healthy, but you aren't losing any weight because you have a disorder.

edited for clarity

I wasn't claiming that for someone with PCOS it is their fault that they have PCOS, of course having PCOS is beyond their control. That said being overweight is within their control, even if they have PCOS. PCOS has affects on your metabolism for sure but it doesn't mean you are doomed to be overweight. My ex had PCOS and she was quite fit, she just had to make sure she ate frequently enough or she would get groggy.

I totally agree with you. I have PCOS and if I had blamed it for my weight I wouldn't have been able to lose 90 pounds and counting. Having a medical condition only makes it more possible to gain faster and lose slower, it does not alter the gain/loss process itself - eating over/under maintenance. It's self-inflected, be it by continuously going over maintenance, not caring enough to watch/notice weight change, or by simply not looking for information about one's condition.

I'm actually ambivalent about this. Yes, what you put in your mouth is your choice.

But, when I was nursing and gaining weight, I was HUNGRY all the time. Like rob-a-bank hungry. Hunger is pretty compelling. It's designed to be. It can push somebody to take major risks for survival.

I really can't leave it at "it was your choice" for somebody eating the extra sandwich or three in that situation.

I see a lot of people with a lot of excuses. And I see a lot of successful people who, by self-report, have moved beyond them (me being one of them). There's probably more people with excuses than there are people who are being motivated by biological drives to unhealthy behaviors. But I know there are people in the second group too.

Believe me, I had (and have) these days when all I want is to eat nonstop. The solution could be as simple as making lower calorie and more filling choices combined with eating at maintenance until it passes. Excuses are just excuses. There is more than one way to tackle hurdles, victimizing oneself is not one of them.

These people may need to be more creative with their approach, seeking medical help if all fails, but it just boils down to choice. Do I chose to stay the same weight or lose it? This depends on which of the choices has more desirable consequences to me. If one chooses to stay fat because losing weight and maintaining it does not sound appealing or is not worth the effort, that's great! It's when these same people cry victim that annoys me.

Even after I chose to lose weight I went through a 5 month period about a year ago where I chose, consciously, to maintain for a while. At that time, maintenance sounded more appealing to me than losing weight and served my goals better because I was going through some rough times. Rough times did not "force" me to press pause, choosing to focus on one aspect of my life more than the other did. And that's fine. I knew the reasons and the consequences and I willingly chose to go that route.

I have days when I want to eat all the time. What I had then was months where I was ravenous before, during and after meals. It was very different.

Exercise, when I finally had time to do it, helped. Lowering my body fat helped A LOT. Learning how to lose weight on an adequate number of calories so I wasn't forcing myself to binge was critical.

So, yes, I was able to find ways to work through the situation. And it was actually pretty easy when I had all the pieces together.

But I know how unhelpful somebody saying "you just need to take personal responsibility" is when you are taking all the personal responsibility you can and are hurting and nothing is working.

I agree. Personal responsibility is the answer. But I feel ambivalent about taking a hard line.

Need2Exerc1se

Interesting article in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html

From the article:

“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”

Flies in the face of everything we believe here.

Does it? Granted, I very knew to this site, but I would assume there are just as many struggling here as elsewhere when focusing on calories alone.

I do wonder though why they chose to put low-fat up against low-carb, though. Doctors and scientists who study nutrition have been against low-fat diets for quite some time, especially if weight loss is the only goal. Your local GP, who probably does not keep up with nutrition as s/he should, may still recommend it, though. It's pretty common knowledge that eating things like olive oil, avocado, oily fish and nuts are recommended for good health.

You can't review a study on low-fat vs low-carb and rationally conclude that low-carb works better than counting calories. To know if calorie counting works better than low carb w/o calorie counting, one would have to study those ways of eating.

It wasn't comparing calorie counting to low carb w/o calorie counting. It was comparing a group with fat intake at 30% and a group with intake of carbs at 40g (so the low carb group had to focus more on counting than the "low" fat group. Neither one were specifically told to count their calories and limit themselves specifically below a calorie amount.

Even if people were wrong in what they reported (both groups being wrong), then what about the actual loss numbers at the end of it? For me , I'm not arguing against CICO, I'm saying the avenue to restrict your calorie in can be different than just the standard low cal and that when you eat low carb, even if you don't intend to restrict calories, you do because you just aren't as hungry. Simple as that. Some people may not be hungry eating high carb while restricting calories, but for many people, eating moderate protein and high fat keeps their hunger in check. Don't say you don't like blanket statements MrM and then proceed to make one yourself. Good for you for eating high carb and eating in calorie restriction, good for you for drinking Coke, but that doesn't mean nobody else can be hungry while eating high carb or think that Coke is worth it for the calories.

Who or what is MrM? You quoted my post, but seem to be aswering another.

My point was that the quote in the OP that said low-carb may be easier than counting calories, whether true or not, is not a conclusion one could make from the study, since the study did not compare counting calories to low-carb.

jtakingcareofherself

It sure does. A calorie is a calorie regardless if it comes from carrots or cookies, protein, fat or carbs. Weight loss is simple math, calories in versus calories out.

except it's not... simple math, that is.

for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.

I suspect that your body's "efficiency" is about equal to your inability to accurately measure your intake.

You really enjoy the drive by insults.

And machines need oil to drive efficiently, don't they?

jtakingcareofherself

What is missing in this typical diatribe about CICO and low carb is reference to hormones, and the integral role they play in weight loss. Your body will not be able to use adipose cells for energy if your insulin is high. That is a fact.

And weight loss is one thing, and weight maintenance is another.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Catter_05

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

As for your efficiency comment if you are saying your BMR is much LOWER than expected that means your body is actually EXTREMELY efficient, much more so than the average population. So I am not sure why you are saying operating at low efficiency.

what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.

Then exercise more or lose weight at a slower rate, I guess I don't get it. Nothing says you have to lose weight based solely on your BMR nor do you have to lose weight at the rate of 1 pound per week. Nothing here makes CICO wrong or weight loss impossible so I guess what is the point here...that it is hard? Yeah of course it is hard.

Calculators tell me that I maintain at 3000 calories a day, but I don't...I maintain at more like 2500 calories a day. So what do I do about that? Well I adjust to what my body actually does and go off of that and I ignore the calculators. The calculators are based on population averages and assumptions. Just because the calculator says I could be eating 500 calories more when I found that I can't doesn't make me mope about it though nor does it make me think there is something wrong with me.

To be honest, I have had this disorder for a very long time and have never been obese. I have probably been at the high end of healthy to slightly overweight since puberty. During my high school years I was on the track team, exercising constantly and I could never lose weight. I barely ate. It wasn't that I wanted to be skinny, I just wanted to be thinner.
I went to the Dr. and no one could tell me what was wrong. It wasn't until fertility issues became a problem that I was diagnosed. This was mostly because we moved to a metropolitan area that had specialists who could diagnose and treat me. From what I've read, I am actually pretty lucky that I have managed to stay in a healthy bmi range as most people who have PCOS can't. There is a lot more information out there now though. In the 80's and 90's when I was suffering, information about diets and disorders were not as readily available.
I guess my point is that it's easy to point your finger at people and say it's their fault, but I think it can be rather discouraging, at least it was to me, when people tell you it's in your head or it's in your control. When your body doesn't work right it really isn't your fault. Especially, when no one has told you what you can do to fix it. I have finally been able to lose some of the 20 lbs that has been clinging to me with medical intervention and a low carb approach.
But, for people who are undiagnosed the frustration and pointlessness that is felt when you are exercising and barely eating and still the scale won't move, telling them it's their fault is just cruel and damaging.

Need2Exerc1se

Interesting article in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html

From the article:

“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”

Flies in the face of everything we believe here.

Does it? Granted, I very knew to this site, but I would assume there are just as many struggling here as elsewhere when focusing on calories alone.

I do wonder though why they chose to put low-fat up against low-carb, though. Doctors and scientists who study nutrition have been against low-fat diets for quite some time, especially if weight loss is the only goal. Your local GP, who probably does not keep up with nutrition as s/he should, may still recommend it, though. It's pretty common knowledge that eating things like olive oil, avocado, oily fish and nuts are recommended for good health.

You can't review a study on low-fat vs low-carb and rationally conclude that low-carb works better than counting calories. To know if calorie counting works better than low carb w/o calorie counting, one would have to study those ways of eating.

It wasn't comparing calorie counting to low carb w/o calorie counting. It was comparing a group with fat intake at 30% and a group with intake of carbs at 40g (so the low carb group had to focus more on counting than the "low" fat group. Neither one were specifically told to count their calories and limit themselves specifically below a calorie amount.

Even if people were wrong in what they reported (both groups being wrong), then what about the actual loss numbers at the end of it? For me , I'm not arguing against CICO, I'm saying the avenue to restrict your calorie in can be different than just the standard low cal and that when you eat low carb, even if you don't intend to restrict calories, you do because you just aren't as hungry. Simple as that. Some people may not be hungry eating high carb while restricting calories, but for many people, eating moderate protein and high fat keeps their hunger in check. Don't say you don't like blanket statements MrM and then proceed to make one yourself. Good for you for eating high carb and eating in calorie restriction, good for you for drinking Coke, but that doesn't mean nobody else can be hungry while eating high carb or think that Coke is worth it for the calories.

Who or what is MrM? You quoted my post, but seem to be aswering another.

My point was that the quote in the OP that said low-carb may be easier than counting calories, whether true or not, is not a conclusion one could make from the study, since the study did not compare counting calories to low-carb.

I'm MrM.

OIC Pleased to meet you. It seems your message was misdirected to me.

rprussell2004

There are two types of people in the States: Those who enjoy a LCHF diet and the myriad associated benefits, and those who mindlessly mock us.

Give up the arguing, folks. It's pointless. The 40-year-old "Food Pyramid" is too entrenched.

Let the people shlork down their bread and potatoes and leave us the bacon. They'll die off soon enough.

eric_sg61

There are two types of people in the States: Those who enjoy a LCHF diet and the myriad associated benefits, and those who mindlessly mock us.

Give up the arguing, folks. It's pointless. The 40-year-old "Food Pyramid" is too entrenched.

Let the people shlork down their bread and potatoes and leave us the bacon. They'll die off soon enough.

LOL another LCHF person who thinks bacon is healthy..........lol just lol

Fit_Housewife

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

As for your efficiency comment if you are saying your BMR is much LOWER than expected that means your body is actually EXTREMELY efficient, much more so than the average population. So I am not sure why you are saying operating at low efficiency.

what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.

Then exercise more or lose weight at a slower rate, I guess I don't get it. Nothing says you have to lose weight based solely on your BMR nor do you have to lose weight at the rate of 1 pound per week. Nothing here makes CICO wrong or weight loss impossible so I guess what is the point here...that it is hard? Yeah of course it is hard.

Calculators tell me that I maintain at 3000 calories a day, but I don't...I maintain at more like 2500 calories a day. So what do I do about that? Well I adjust to what my body actually does and go off of that and I ignore the calculators. The calculators are based on population averages and assumptions. Just because the calculator says I could be eating 500 calories more when I found that I can't doesn't make me mope about it though nor does it make me think there is something wrong with me.

To be honest, I have had this disorder for a very long time and have never been obese. I have probably been at the high end of healthy to slightly overweight since puberty. During my high school years I was on the track team, exercising constantly and I could never lose weight. I barely ate. It wasn't that I wanted to be skinny, I just wanted to be thinner.
I went to the Dr. and no one could tell me what was wrong. It wasn't until fertility issues became a problem that I was diagnosed. This was mostly because we moved to a metropolitan area that had specialists who could diagnose and treat me. From what I've read, I am actually pretty lucky that I have managed to stay in a healthy bmi range as most people who have PCOS can't. There is a lot more information out there now though. In the 80's and 90's when I was suffering, information about diets and disorders were not as readily available.
I guess my point is that it's easy to point your finger at people and say it's their fault, but I think it can be rather discouraging, at least it was to me, when people tell you it's in your head or it's in your control. When your body doesn't work right it really isn't your fault. Especially, when no one has told you what you can do to fix it. I have finally been able to lose some of the 20 lbs that has been clinging to me with medical intervention and a low carb approach.
But, for people who are undiagnosed the frustration and pointlessness that is felt when you are exercising and barely eating and still the scale won't move, telling them it's their fault is just cruel and damaging.

Thank you, and congrats on your success despite your hurdle. I think the main issue IMO is the way people say things sometimes on here. It seems more of pointing a finger than trying to help. Also lumping everyone as " fatties" just making excuses. Some of us are determined DESPITE difficulties we may have to overcome. Telling people they are incapable of weighing measuring and logging accurately is insulting. Granted there are those that are not weighting and should be told to go here first BUT if this is not the issue being told you're a fat liar isn't constructive.

WalkingAlong

The odd thing (to me) is that both groups kept to a reported intake of at least 500 cals below baseline yet after 3 months both groups regained some weight.

I'm looking at the study itself and it looks like neither group lost any additional weight, and both even gained some, in the last NINE months of the study. With reported calories <1500.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

asdowe13

There are two types of people in the States: Those who enjoy a LCHF diet and the myriad associated benefits, and those who mindlessly mock us.

Give up the arguing, folks. It's pointless. The 40-year-old "Food Pyramid" is too entrenched.

Let the people shlork down their bread and potatoes and leave us the bacon. They'll die off soon enough.

You should worry now..... I'm going to "shlork" down bread and potatoes, but I'm also going to eat that Bacon.

paperpudding

There are two types of people in the States: Those who enjoy a LCHF diet and the myriad associated benefits, and those who mindlessly mock us.

Give up the arguing, folks. It's pointless. The 40-year-old "Food Pyramid" is too entrenched.

Let the people shlork down their bread and potatoes and leave us the bacon. They'll die off soon enough.

I'm not sure which country everyone is from but it seemed to me most posters were engaged in an intelligent discussion.
Very little mocking of low carb diets at all.

You do seem over zealous in your My way is the only right way attitude. :indifferent:

Maitria

i have a desk job, but i go to the gym (circuit/weight training and cardio) 3-5 times a week. using the multiplyer for "sedentary" provides a good margin of error. if the math that everyone puts so much dogmatic faith in really is correct, that means to get a 500 calorie per day deficit, i would have to be down around 880 calories a day. the problem is that based on my age and weight, my BMR should be MUCH higher than that. the fact that it isn't is what seems to be causing the problems.

Hopefully they figure out why your metabolism is slowed. Have you ever used an activity tracker to help you keep tabs on what you're doing and expected results? Fitbit sends a weekly summary. (I'm interested because my BMR is below 1200, but I don't have to go below 1200 to lose weight. I'm pretty restricted on exercise. What has been the most pleasant for me has been to eat between 1200 and my maintenance, which is between 1600-2000 depending on the day.) I'm surprised that your maintenance is only at 1380 calories.

rprussell2004

There are two types of people in the States: Those who enjoy a LCHF diet and the myriad associated benefits, and those who mindlessly mock us.

I'm not sure which country everyone is from but it seemed to me most posters were engaged in an intelligent discussion.
Very little mocking of low carb diets at all.

Oh - this could very well be. I read through the first four pages and then jumped to the end. I'll go catch up.

I'll note though that the first two people responding to my post said "LOL just LOL" and "derp derp derp," which is fairly mockish IMO.

You do seem over zealous in your My way is the only right way attitude. :indifferent:

Well, I'm generally live-and-let-live, because we are all, in the end, very different. But when there are more and more emerging studies and stories about the benefits of a LCHF diet (which I have personally experienced, in fact) - and the stories are NIH, NYT, etc... not just tinfoil hat blogs - it frustrates me to encounter folks who still plug their ears and chant "la la la I am not listening" while simultaneously saying it's all wrong.

Which, admittedly, leads to zeal.

MelRC117

There are two types of people in the States: Those who enjoy a LCHF diet and the myriad associated benefits, and those who mindlessly mock us.

Give up the arguing, folks. It's pointless. The 40-year-old "Food Pyramid" is too entrenched.

Let the people shlork down their bread and potatoes and leave us the bacon. They'll die off soon enough.

I'm going to chime in again because its people like you who give LCHF diet a bad name that were all a bunch of loonies. You eat your diet, let others determine theirs. Seriously, we don't like people assuming things and spouting off incorrect crap about LCHF, don't do the same if it works for them.

likitisplit

There are two types of people in the States: Those who enjoy a LCHF diet and the myriad associated benefits, and those who mindlessly mock us.

I'm not sure which country everyone is from but it seemed to me most posters were engaged in an intelligent discussion.
Very little mocking of low carb diets at all.

Oh - this could very well be. I read through the first four pages and then jumped to the end. I'll go catch up.

You do seem over zealous in your My way is the only right way attitude. :indifferent:

Well, I'm generally live-and-let-live, because we are all, in the end, very different. But when there are more and more emerging studies and stories about the benefits of a LCHF diet (which I have personally experienced, in fact) - and the stories are NIH, NYT, etc... not just tinfoil hat blogs - it frustrates me to encounter folks who still plug their ears and chant "la la la I am not listening" while simultaneously saying it's all wrong.

Which, admittedly, leads to zeal.

There are benefits...for some people...but one of those benefits is not magical calories. And that's basically the TL;DR of the thread.

likitisplit

What is missing in this typical diatribe about CICO and low carb is reference to hormones, and the integral role they play in weight loss. Your body will not be able to use adipose cells for energy if your insulin is high. That is a fact.

And weight loss is one thing, and weight maintenance is another.

And that's why discussions about CICO generally include the language "barring metabolic disorders"

The problems with weight maintenance have nothing to do with CICO.

Catter_05

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

As for your efficiency comment if you are saying your BMR is much LOWER than expected that means your body is actually EXTREMELY efficient, much more so than the average population. So I am not sure why you are saying operating at low efficiency.

what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.

Then exercise more or lose weight at a slower rate, I guess I don't get it. Nothing says you have to lose weight based solely on your BMR nor do you have to lose weight at the rate of 1 pound per week. Nothing here makes CICO wrong or weight loss impossible so I guess what is the point here...that it is hard? Yeah of course it is hard.

Calculators tell me that I maintain at 3000 calories a day, but I don't...I maintain at more like 2500 calories a day. So what do I do about that? Well I adjust to what my body actually does and go off of that and I ignore the calculators. The calculators are based on population averages and assumptions. Just because the calculator says I could be eating 500 calories more when I found that I can't doesn't make me mope about it though nor does it make me think there is something wrong with me.

To be honest, I have had this disorder for a very long time and have never been obese. I have probably been at the high end of healthy to slightly overweight since puberty. During my high school years I was on the track team, exercising constantly and I could never lose weight. I barely ate. It wasn't that I wanted to be skinny, I just wanted to be thinner.
I went to the Dr. and no one could tell me what was wrong. It wasn't until fertility issues became a problem that I was diagnosed. This was mostly because we moved to a metropolitan area that had specialists who could diagnose and treat me. From what I've read, I am actually pretty lucky that I have managed to stay in a healthy bmi range as most people who have PCOS can't. There is a lot more information out there now though. In the 80's and 90's when I was suffering, information about diets and disorders were not as readily available.
I guess my point is that it's easy to point your finger at people and say it's their fault, but I think it can be rather discouraging, at least it was to me, when people tell you it's in your head or it's in your control. When your body doesn't work right it really isn't your fault. Especially, when no one has told you what you can do to fix it. I have finally been able to lose some of the 20 lbs that has been clinging to me with medical intervention and a low carb approach.
But, for people who are undiagnosed the frustration and pointlessness that is felt when you are exercising and barely eating and still the scale won't move, telling them it's their fault is just cruel and damaging.

Thank you, and congrats on your success despite your hurdle. I think the main issue IMO is the way people say things sometimes on here. It seems more of pointing a finger than trying to help. Also lumping everyone as " fatties" just making excuses. Some of us are determined DESPITE difficulties we may have to overcome. Telling people they are incapable of weighing measuring and logging accurately is insulting. Granted there are those that are not weighting and should be told to go here first BUT if this is not the issue being told you're a fat liar isn't constructive.

Thank you

meridianova

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

As for your efficiency comment if you are saying your BMR is much LOWER than expected that means your body is actually EXTREMELY efficient, much more so than the average population. So I am not sure why you are saying operating at low efficiency.

what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.

Then exercise more or lose weight at a slower rate, I guess I don't get it. Nothing says you have to lose weight based solely on your BMR nor do you have to lose weight at the rate of 1 pound per week. Nothing here makes CICO wrong or weight loss impossible so I guess what is the point here...that it is hard? Yeah of course it is hard.

Calculators tell me that I maintain at 3000 calories a day, but I don't...I maintain at more like 2500 calories a day. So what do I do about that? Well I adjust to what my body actually does and go off of that and I ignore the calculators. The calculators are based on population averages and assumptions. Just because the calculator says I could be eating 500 calories more when I found that I can't doesn't make me mope about it though nor does it make me think there is something wrong with me.

To be honest, I have had this disorder for a very long time and have never been obese. I have probably been at the high end of healthy to slightly overweight since puberty. During my high school years I was on the track team, exercising constantly and I could never lose weight. I barely ate. It wasn't that I wanted to be skinny, I just wanted to be thinner.
I went to the Dr. and no one could tell me what was wrong. It wasn't until fertility issues became a problem that I was diagnosed. This was mostly because we moved to a metropolitan area that had specialists who could diagnose and treat me. From what I've read, I am actually pretty lucky that I have managed to stay in a healthy bmi range as most people who have PCOS can't. There is a lot more information out there now though. In the 80's and 90's when I was suffering, information about diets and disorders were not as readily available.
I guess my point is that it's easy to point your finger at people and say it's their fault, but I think it can be rather discouraging, at least it was to me, when people tell you it's in your head or it's in your control. When your body doesn't work right it really isn't your fault. Especially, when no one has told you what you can do to fix it. I have finally been able to lose some of the 20 lbs that has been clinging to me with medical intervention and a low carb approach.
But, for people who are undiagnosed the frustration and pointlessness that is felt when you are exercising and barely eating and still the scale won't move, telling them it's their fault is just cruel and damaging.

thank you.

rprussell2004

There are benefits...for some people...but one of those benefits is not magical calories. And that's basically the TL;DR of the thread.

That's a very good point - and one of the questions I've always had with the plan.

But protein and fat trigger feelings of satiety, carbs trigger insulin which triggers more hunger.

The end result is you don't eat as many calories due to not wanting to - as opposed to having to force yourself to stop. IME it's a self-correcting system.

meridianova

i have a desk job, but i go to the gym (circuit/weight training and cardio) 3-5 times a week. using the multiplyer for "sedentary" provides a good margin of error. if the math that everyone puts so much dogmatic faith in really is correct, that means to get a 500 calorie per day deficit, i would have to be down around 880 calories a day. the problem is that based on my age and weight, my BMR should be MUCH higher than that. the fact that it isn't is what seems to be causing the problems.

Hopefully they figure out why your metabolism is slowed. Have you ever used an activity tracker to help you keep tabs on what you're doing and expected results? Fitbit sends a weekly summary. (I'm interested because my BMR is below 1200, but I don't have to go below 1200 to lose weight. I'm pretty restricted on exercise. What has been the most pleasant for me has been to eat between 1200 and my maintenance, which is between 1600-2000 depending on the day.) I'm surprised that your maintenance is only at 1380 calories.

right now, that's one of the things i'm trying to figure out... where do my REAL TDEE, BMR, and maintenance rates fall? all the different methods of calculations give me wildly varying numbers so zeroing in on the truth becomes more confusing. if i was within 90% of the calculated BMR/TDEE, i wouldn't care.

WalkingAlong

It doesn't really matter what your REAL TDEE is. If you log 1500 for weeks on end and maintain, your TDEE is around whatever calorie level you're really hitting when you're logging 1500. You don't need to know the actual values, just that you need to eat less than you do when you log 1500 (or whatever logged value you maintain at).

Unknown

This content has been removed.

likitisplit

There are benefits...for some people...but one of those benefits is not magical calories. And that's basically the TL;DR of the thread.

That's a very good point - and one of the questions I've always had with the plan.

But protein and fat trigger feelings of satiety, carbs trigger insulin which triggers more hunger.

The end result is you don't eat as many calories due to not wanting to - as opposed to having to force yourself to stop. IME it's a self-correcting system.

Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?

Insulin triggers muscle building. I don't know where it's got the reputation of being some bad thing that we should avoid. It's a critical metabolic step.

likitisplit

It doesn't really matter what your REAL TDEE is. If you log 1500 for weeks on end and maintain, your TDEE is around whatever calorie level you're really hitting when you're logging 1500. You don't need to know the actual values, just that you need to eat less than you do when you log 1500 (or whatever logged value you maintain at).

^This.

likitisplit

There are benefits...for some people...but one of those benefits is not magical calories. And that's basically the TL;DR of the thread.

That's a very good point - and one of the questions I've always had with the plan.

But protein and fat trigger feelings of satiety, carbs trigger insulin which triggers more hunger.

The end result is you don't eat as many calories due to not wanting to - as opposed to having to force yourself to stop. IME it's a self-correcting system.

For SOME people that's the end result. Other people find that they need some amount of carbs to not feel hungry.

eric_sg61

There are benefits...for some people...but one of those benefits is not magical calories. And that's basically the TL;DR of the thread.

That's a very good point - and one of the questions I've always had with the plan.

But protein and fat trigger feelings of satiety, carbs trigger insulin which triggers more hunger.

The end result is you don't eat as many calories due to not wanting to - as opposed to having to force yourself to stop. IME it's a self-correcting system.

Why is it when people speak of carbs and insulin response they don't also add that protein generates an insulin response? Because you do realize it does right?

Insulin triggers muscle building. I don't know where it's got the reputation of being some bad thing that we should avoid. It's a critical metabolic step.

Insulin got its bad reputation because one function is a storage hormone---and that is the only thing about it that people who don't do further research latch onto.