A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

NextPage

I think Dr.Freedoff's post on this article is good. Here is a quote:

"Lastly, it's important to note that if the question is whether you personally should go low-carb, low-fat, or in-between this study certainly doesn't answer that. Ultimately the best diet for you is the one you actually enjoy enough to keep living with, as merely tolerable diets won't last, and any and all can work so long as you enjoy them enough to sustain them as seen in this meta-analysis published yesterday in JAMA.

Putting this all another way it's important not to forget that one person's best diet is undoubtedly another person's worst, and that folks who are stuck dogmatically promoting only one "best" diet can be safely ignored. "

For the full article go to the today's post in http://www.weightymatters.ca/
For the http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1900510

WalkingAlong

it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.

If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.

and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.

But short of moving more or taking supplemental thyroid hormones, all you can do is eat at the deficit level that causes you to lose weight, like everyone else.

You don't know if it's because you're underestimating your intake or the estimators overestimate your burns but it doesn't matter because in either case, the solution is the same.

Catter_05

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?

Whey protein? Apparently different proteins react differently too. I read that it doesn't exactly do the same thing to your blood sugar that carbs do. (My diet is under the care of several Drs.). I will ask my endocrinologist to clarify since he his a metabolism specialist and he wants me to eat low carb.

Whey does stimulate insulin secretion. There have been numerous studies performed to evaluate When's effects on BGL.

Right, I was agreeing. Whey is a fast burning protein. What I was trying to say was that different proteins act differently. For instance casein burns slower so you wouldn't get the same spike you get from whey. And proteins don't act the same way that simple carbs do. That's all. I just explained myself poorly. I'm not even sure I'm explaining myself well now, and I could be wrong, that was how I understood it. I read about this when I was looking into protein supplements a while ago so I may be confused.

meridianova

it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.

If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.

and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.

But short of moving more or taking supplemental thyroid hormones, all you can do is eat at the deficit level that causes you to lose weight, like everyone else.

You don't know if it's because you're underestimating your intake or the estimators overestimate your burns but it doesn't matter because in either case, the solution is the same.

and again, i will state... dropping my calories low enough to effect the same rate of loss puts me down into the range of 800 a day, considering that i would have to have a deficit 25% higher than everyone else's. what it's telling me is that a 3500 calorie deficit doesn't burn a pound. it burns .75 pounds. which means i have to expend 4,375 calories' worth of work to do what someone else can do burning only 3,500.

what it means is that my intake drops to below sustainable levels to be able to function properly and get proper nutrition.

WalkingAlong

Or that you underestimate your intake, like we all do to some extent.

If your body needs X calories to maintain at 100 lbs. overweight, I don't think it needs a number >X for proper nutrition and function, or even greater than 80% of X.

likitisplit

it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.

If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.

and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.

But short of moving more or taking supplemental thyroid hormones, all you can do is eat at the deficit level that causes you to lose weight, like everyone else.

You don't know if it's because you're underestimating your intake or the estimators overestimate your burns but it doesn't matter because in either case, the solution is the same.

and again, i will state... dropping my calories low enough to effect the same rate of loss puts me down into the range of 800 a day, considering that i would have to have a deficit 25% higher than everyone else's. what it's telling me is that a 3500 calorie deficit doesn't burn a pound. it burns .75 pounds. which means i have to expend 4,375 calories' worth of work to do what someone else can do burning only 3,500.

what it means is that my intake drops to below sustainable levels to be able to function properly and get proper nutrition.

To lose a pound.

However, you are underestimating your activity level and not considering the fact that losing something less than a pound is an option.

I can never hack a 3500 weekly deficit. I always lose a half pound a week or less. I just can't handle hunger. I have to make a choice based on my body and what *I* can manage.

While you should definitely seek medical advice, at the end of the day it'll be *your* choices based on your needs that dictate your body composition.

meridianova

Or that you underestimate your intake, like we all do to some extent.

If your body needs X calories to maintain at 100 lbs. overweight, I don't think it needs a number >X for proper nutrition and function, or even greater than 80% of X.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now we're back to the "you're doing it wrong" argument. if you think i'm underestimating my intake, you can go argue with my kitchen scale. everything i eat is weighed, measured, and/or portioned. i believe i covered that about 40 posts ago.

LiminalAscendance

Or that you underestimate your intake, like we all do to some extent.

If your body needs X calories to maintain at 100 lbs. overweight, I don't think it needs a number >X for proper nutrition and function, or even greater than 80% of X.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now we're back to the "you're doing it wrong" argument. if you think i'm underestimating my intake, you can go argue with my kitchen scale. everything i eat is weighed, measured, and/or portioned. i believe i covered that about 40 posts ago.

Are you trying to lose weight? Are you succeeding?

If so, who cares what anyone else thinks. You're obviously doing something right.

Otherwise...

lemurcat12

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.

If you have real data, ignore the calculations. Do your own, based on your data, and use that.

I think I misunderstood your original post, which was during a period of quick back and forth, because you seemed to be saying that your numbers were inconsistent with CICO. Thus, I read you too quickly and assumed you were saying some version of the "I couldn't lose on 800 until I did [insert here low carb/raw/clean, etc.] and then I lost on 2500." If your point was that the TDEE calculators don't seem to work for you, that's not a CICO issue at all. People take those calculators as if they were infallible sometimes, when they are just averages and estimates, as others have said. If you start with them, you adjust based on actual results. If you have actual results, you use those, as they are better.

If you think your TDEE is way off what it should be, such that there might be a metabolic issue, use the data you've gathered and show it to a doctor.

meridianova

it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.

If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.

and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.

But short of moving more or taking supplemental thyroid hormones, all you can do is eat at the deficit level that causes you to lose weight, like everyone else.

You don't know if it's because you're underestimating your intake or the estimators overestimate your burns but it doesn't matter because in either case, the solution is the same.

and again, i will state... dropping my calories low enough to effect the same rate of loss puts me down into the range of 800 a day, considering that i would have to have a deficit 25% higher than everyone else's. what it's telling me is that a 3500 calorie deficit doesn't burn a pound. it burns .75 pounds. which means i have to expend 4,375 calories' worth of work to do what someone else can do burning only 3,500.

what it means is that my intake drops to below sustainable levels to be able to function properly and get proper nutrition.

To lose a pound.

However, you are underestimating your activity level and not considering the fact that losing something less than a pound is an option.

and by doing so, creating a larger deficit which should increase the rate of loss, right?

I can never hack a 3500 weekly deficit. I always lose a half pound a week or less. I just can't handle hunger. I have to make a choice based on my body and what *I* can manage.

While you should definitely seek medical advice, at the end of the day it'll be *your* choices based on your needs that dictate your body composition.

i have just over 30lbs to get to my first goal... not even my ultimate goal, which is about 30lbs after THAT. i can't even assume a steady rate of loss, since i'll lose a pound or two and then spend the next 3 - 4 weeks gaining and re-losing that weight. i'm using EvgeniZyntx's graphing spreadsheet to track my progress. according to that, i should hit my first goal somewhere between july 2017 and september 2018.

i would prefer that this not take 3.5 years to do, especially considering that the last time i went through this, i lost the same amount in about 6 months.

LiminalAscendance

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.

If you have real data, ignore the calculations. Do your own, based on your data, and use that.

Why would anyone think that some standardized formula, which has to contend with a myriad of variables (such as activity level), not to mention variations that naturally occur across subjects, would be 100% accurate.

It's a starting point. Look at your results, based on what you think you're eating, and adjust as necessary.

The fact that this has to be explained (and not just once) strains credulity.

lemurcat12

I just find it ridiculous when people tote falsities as facts, and promote the diet they are on as the best diet, or only diet.

This.

lemurcat12

it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.

If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.

and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.

People often overestimate the effect of body fat alone on TDEE. If you use the calculators that don't include body fat, your TDEE, if you are significantly overweight, is usually overestimated, sometimes substantially. If I control for changes in body fat percentage, the difference in my TDEE, holding exercise constant, between my high, my current, and my goal is not nearly what I would have assumed, and my TDEE at my highest is WELL below what the calculators without that number would have given me. This is part of why my TDEE has actually increased as I lost (due to becoming more active, of course).

WalkingAlong

Or that you underestimate your intake, like we all do to some extent.

If your body needs X calories to maintain at 100 lbs. overweight, I don't think it needs a number >X for proper nutrition and function, or even greater than 80% of X.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now we're back to the "you're doing it wrong" argument. if you think i'm underestimating my intake, you can go argue with my kitchen scale. everything i eat is weighed, measured, and/or portioned. i believe i covered that about 40 posts ago.

None of us catch it all. We all think we do. Look at this study the thread was about -- 148 men and women trained in how to do this correctly for the study reported eating sub-1500 calories for 12 months and only lost weight in the first three months. And apparently the researchers didn't bat an eye at that even though their TDEEs were around the 2000 level. The people should've lost on average over 40 lbs. that 9 months.

Even if you weigh everything that enters your mouth, there is no guarantee the database entry you log it as is (1) the correct entry for your food or (2) has correct info.

Even if you do really need to eat 800 to lose any weight at all, I'm pretty sure a doctor would say it's not a dangerously low level for you, because it would be a mild deficit for you.

Good luck!

lemurcat12

and again, i will state... dropping my calories low enough to effect the same rate of loss puts me down into the range of 800 a day, considering that i would have to have a deficit 25% higher than everyone else's. what it's telling me is that a 3500 calorie deficit doesn't burn a pound. it burns .75 pounds. which means i have to expend 4,375 calories' worth of work to do what someone else can do burning only 3,500.

There's no set amount that "everyone" but you eats to be at maintenance. The deficit is not from some absolute number, but from your personal maintenance, so there is no deficit of 3500 that burns only .75 of a lb. If you have your data and it's accurate, you can figure what your maintenance is, as I can, as most of us here can. Your objection does not seem to be with CICO, but simply that you believe your maintenance is lower than it should be, absent some kind of physical condition. It certainly could be. But again that has nothing to do with calories per lb or CICO. It has to do with people's maintenance levels varying, even when you control for height, weight, and body fat percentage. (Or it could have to do with estimates being off on the other end.)

meridianova

Or that you underestimate your intake, like we all do to some extent.

If your body needs X calories to maintain at 100 lbs. overweight, I don't think it needs a number >X for proper nutrition and function, or even greater than 80% of X.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now we're back to the "you're doing it wrong" argument. if you think i'm underestimating my intake, you can go argue with my kitchen scale. everything i eat is weighed, measured, and/or portioned. i believe i covered that about 40 posts ago.

Are you trying to lose weight? Are you succeeding?

If so, who cares what anyone else thinks. You're obviously doing something right.

Otherwise...

yes, i am... and trust me, i'm clinging to that like a life raft right now. if it wasn't for that, and the fact that i actually enjoy going to the gym, i'd be falling back into a whole host of self-destructive habits. i'm already teetering on the edge of some of them.

Why would anyone think that some standardized formula, which has to contend with a myriad of variables (such as activity level), not to mention variations that naturally occur across subjects, would be 100% accurate.

It's a starting point. Look at your results, based on what you think you're eating, and adjust as necessary.

The fact that this has to be explained (and not just once) strains credulity.

it's not that i expect those calculations to be 100% accurate. i don't. i expect SOME sort of variance here and there because at the end of the day, we are all unique and process fuel according to however it is each of us deals with the macronutrients we eat.

HOWEVER... while i'd accept a 10% variance here or there, i (personally) find a 25% variance to the low side to be troubling enough that i want an answer as to WHY it's so low. just as i'd want an answer if it was 25% higher than expected.

likitisplit

it's not a question of whining that it's hard. i know this is hard. i've dealt with this all my life. but why should i have to settle for being a turtle? my body has the potential to be so much more than it is right now.

If you burn less, your body is like a Prius-- efficient. It takes less fuel. I don't burn a lot of calories because I'm not male, young, tall or very heavy but it's ok because for me, 1400 calories feels like a mild deficit because it is. Someone who burns 3000 calories a day would have a harder time at 1400. It's apples and oranges.

and i'd agree with you, IF i was 100 pounds lighter than i am right now. and since i'm not hosting a 100lb tumor, something is preventing my metabolism from being as high as it should be for someone of my weight.

But short of moving more or taking supplemental thyroid hormones, all you can do is eat at the deficit level that causes you to lose weight, like everyone else.

You don't know if it's because you're underestimating your intake or the estimators overestimate your burns but it doesn't matter because in either case, the solution is the same.

and again, i will state... dropping my calories low enough to effect the same rate of loss puts me down into the range of 800 a day, considering that i would have to have a deficit 25% higher than everyone else's. what it's telling me is that a 3500 calorie deficit doesn't burn a pound. it burns .75 pounds. which means i have to expend 4,375 calories' worth of work to do what someone else can do burning only 3,500.

what it means is that my intake drops to below sustainable levels to be able to function properly and get proper nutrition.

To lose a pound.

However, you are underestimating your activity level and not considering the fact that losing something less than a pound is an option.

and by doing so, creating a larger deficit which should increase the rate of loss, right?

I can never hack a 3500 weekly deficit. I always lose a half pound a week or less. I just can't handle hunger. I have to make a choice based on my body and what *I* can manage.

While you should definitely seek medical advice, at the end of the day it'll be *your* choices based on your needs that dictate your body composition.

i have just over 30lbs to get to my first goal... not even my ultimate goal, which is about 30lbs after THAT. i can't even assume a steady rate of loss, since i'll lose a pound or two and then spend the next 3 - 4 weeks gaining and re-losing that weight. i'm using EvgeniZyntx's graphing spreadsheet to track my progress. according to that, i should hit my first goal somewhere between july 2017 and september 2018.

i would prefer that this not take 3.5 years to do, especially considering that the last time i went through this, i lost the same amount in about 6 months.

At a certain point, any loss is better than gaining.

Unless/until you get a medical answer for your issue, then you are stuck in a narrow band between unhealthy loss and gain.

You are by no means the only person in that position. What you prefer has nothing to do with your reality. You've probably already done this, and are just playing advocate, but to stop worrying about the "shoulds" and figure out what you need to do for your body and your metabolism is going to get you a lot farther than being frustrated about what happened last time.

Most people hit new lows and then swan around gaining and re-losing. I assume that you have a menstrual cycle, but even men experience this. That's why most people suggest waiting 6 weeks to see a trend.

Be happy for your successes. It sounds like you are doing great.

Mr_Knight

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand now we're back to the "you're doing it wrong" argument. if you think i'm underestimating my intake, you can go argue with my kitchen scale. everything i eat is weighed, measured, and/or portioned. i believe i covered that about 40 posts ago.

Open your diary.

meridianova

You've probably already done this, and are just playing advocate, but to stop worrying about the "shoulds" and figure out what you need to do for your body and your metabolism is going to get you a lot farther than being frustrated about what happened last time.

you're right... the "shoulds" give me a goal post to shoot for, and a way to say "how do i get from HERE to THERE?"

Most people hit new lows and then swan around gaining and re-losing. I assume that you have a menstrual cycle, but even men experience this. That's why most people suggest waiting 6 weeks to see a trend.

actually i don't. my son decided he wanted to be an only child and "broke" me during childbirth. trust me, i don't miss it :laugh:.

Be happy for your successes. It sounds like you are doing great.

thank you, i'm trying to be. i'm also trying to remember that this is about overall health, not just fitting into smaller jeans.