A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

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.

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).

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.