what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet?
Replies
-
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Found the link
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
The only one so far that seems more fair - but is STILL self reporting.
And even they admit
'Since food was not provided this conclusion cannot be made with certainty,'
'
Not all studies have shown greater weight loss with a VLCK diet 'Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
This supports my argument - both groups lost the same amount of weight.
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X
"Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss."
no calories assigned and the study admits that the LC group probably ate less.
All are self reporting and while the top study is interesting it is still flawed I'm afraid.
Not to mention that they are very short term studies - the reduction of carbs means a reduction in water weight which affects the process used to determine fat loss.
I'm going to stay it again.
Low carb diets are not a magical bullet that make you gain muscle mass while losing weight.
Calorie restriction is all that is needed for weight loss - if low carb helps you do that, then great, but it is not necessary.
Now I will stop threadjacking the ops thread - and wonder if they will even bother coming back.
The purpose of many of the studies was not to compare one calorie restricted diet to another. Rather to study a low carbohydrate approach (without calorie restriction) independently of the low fat/low calorie approach. For this reason you'll see they did not restrict calories for the low carb dieters in several studies and they say as much. Several of them do control calories however. including the study that shows low carb dieters who ate MORE calories still lost more weight and had significant improvements in cholestorol, tryglicerides etc in the process.
I'm glad you've found what works for you. I'm not saying its a magic bullet but it does work for me and therefore I shared my experiences with the OP. I was asked to provide sources and so I have.
Have a lovely day
Then from a weight loss standpoint the studies are useless because a calorie deficit is the reason for weight loss, you can't take that out of the equation and then say something else "caused" weight loss.
Here's a simple "study" you can do, or anyone else who believes they can eat low carb without worrying about calories.
Figure out your TDEE. For one month eat about 200 calories above your TDEE while eating very low carbs. Of course you will have to replace those calories that were automatically reduced by eating low carb with something else ie. protein or fat. Make sure you are in a calorie surplus everyday while keeping carbs to a minimum. After one month come back and report what happened...
I have a theory what will happen but I will await the "facts"...
Good Luck! :drinker:
Ooops, sorry for offering you a beer above. Too many carbs...
That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day full of bacon and fatty foods. It is possible to lose weight with a low carb (or no carb) diet like Atkins. Calories are not the only way to lose weight.
With that said. I take a more balanced approach. I eat carbs and protien with each meal. If I start stuffing my face with bread I begin craving crap and eating bad things. I feel lowering the carbs I intake helps me feel fuller longer.
I've taken your test and it works well for me. Cheers.
But were you or were you not in a calorie deficit?0 -
**** damn. All this brouhaha, when clearly OP just isn't doing low-carb correctly.
I venture to say that we can all agree on one thing, though:
It should be phrased "FEWER calories," not "LESS calories."0 -
I don't disagree. But people seem to think the OP left because of what happened. The OP wouldn't answer relevant questions and then disappeared long before the hijack. So you really can't blame the debate for him leaving.
The OP's only response to specific questions (long before the thread-jacking) was basically that he wasn't going to answer any questions.
He probably abandoned his thread. As they often do when they get thread jacked.
Other than "eat less"? No. They aren't even answers to the OP. It's just the usuals arguing amongst themselves.OP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.
Because the answers above aren't valid? Do the laws of thermodynamics cease to work in the low carb forum group?
Nobody can answer the op until they provide more information. The kind asked for in the first few posts.
Feel free to try though.
Oh wait, you didn't either.
Which is why I suggested he ask in the low carb forum.
Alas, newbies know no better...how are they supposed to know the minefield they blunder into?
Standard MFP procedure:
See a low-carb thread.
Tell them to not low-carb instead of answering their question.
Dump on low-carb diets/groups. (Zealotry comment.)
Get in a calorie-deficit vs. low-carb debate. Neither accepting the studies linked on either side.
Misinformation about low-carb diets gets spewed. (Often but not as much in this particular thread.)
Just anotha day in the MFP sandbox...
Was what I said untrue?
Check the "I didn't read the OP" threads just posted above this one. Or the "I haven't read any of the comments."
Yeah, OP won't answer any questions. So he won't get any help. People keep responding the above ways, though, regardless of whether OPs give further info. It's just a true observation of the workings of the community.0 -
I lost over a hundred pounds TWICE in my life lowering carbs. I lost it quick (so much for the gain-it-all-back theories) and kept it off for long periods of time too. Now I've got to get back on track.
You might want to re-read what you wrote.
One, you DID gain it all back and apparently twice now since you're on your third go-round. Second, sure you lost it. But then you got "off-track." Which means (at least for you) it was not a sustainable diet.
Now, I am on my second go-round, but that's due to health issues unrelated to my diet. I never needed to lose 100 pounds. I did lose 40 in about three months' time and kept it off for several years. Prior to that, I wore no bigger than a size 8 in my life and I never ate low-carb.
What I did and do is count calories and don't sweat a cookie or piece of cake here and there. Or, you know, a piece or three of fruit. My diet is sustainable. I have been sticking to the change I made to initially lose the weight for seven years without every going "off-track" for more than a day. If my thyroid hadn't gone insane or if my doctors had caught it sooner, I would still be maintaining my initial loss.0 -
Hello friends please share your suggestions here what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet ?
Waiting for the suggestions
I lost 10 pounds very quickly on low carb but got stuck. I have recently started carb cycling and am seeing immediate results. I am on a 5 day low / 2 day high carb cycle. I am also hitting the gym at least an hour a day, 6 days a week. I am seeing great results and feel I can keep up this lifestyle long term. Chris Powell has a book explaining the program. Good luck. :bigsmile:0 -
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Found the link
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
The only one so far that seems more fair - but is STILL self reporting.
And even they admit
'Since food was not provided this conclusion cannot be made with certainty,'
'
Not all studies have shown greater weight loss with a VLCK diet 'Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
This supports my argument - both groups lost the same amount of weight.
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X
"Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss."
no calories assigned and the study admits that the LC group probably ate less.
All are self reporting and while the top study is interesting it is still flawed I'm afraid.
Not to mention that they are very short term studies - the reduction of carbs means a reduction in water weight which affects the process used to determine fat loss.
I'm going to stay it again.
Low carb diets are not a magical bullet that make you gain muscle mass while losing weight.
Calorie restriction is all that is needed for weight loss - if low carb helps you do that, then great, but it is not necessary.
Now I will stop threadjacking the ops thread - and wonder if they will even bother coming back.
The purpose of many of the studies was not to compare one calorie restricted diet to another. Rather to study a low carbohydrate approach (without calorie restriction) independently of the low fat/low calorie approach. For this reason you'll see they did not restrict calories for the low carb dieters in several studies and they say as much. Several of them do control calories however. including the study that shows low carb dieters who ate MORE calories still lost more weight and had significant improvements in cholestorol, tryglicerides etc in the process.
I'm glad you've found what works for you. I'm not saying its a magic bullet but it does work for me and therefore I shared my experiences with the OP. I was asked to provide sources and so I have.
Have a lovely day
Then from a weight loss standpoint the studies are useless because a calorie deficit is the reason for weight loss, you can't take that out of the equation and then say something else "caused" weight loss.
Here's a simple "study" you can do, or anyone else who believes they can eat low carb without worrying about calories.
Figure out your TDEE. For one month eat about 200 calories above your TDEE while eating very low carbs. Of course you will have to replace those calories that were automatically reduced by eating low carb with something else ie. protein or fat. Make sure you are in a calorie surplus everyday while keeping carbs to a minimum. After one month come back and report what happened...
I have a theory what will happen but I will await the "facts"...
Good Luck! :drinker:
Ooops, sorry for offering you a beer above. Too many carbs...
That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day full of bacon and fatty foods. It is possible to lose weight with a low carb (or no carb) diet like Atkins. Calories are not the only way to lose weight.
With that said. I take a more balanced approach. I eat carbs and protien with each meal. If I start stuffing my face with bread I begin craving crap and eating bad things. I feel lowering the carbs I intake helps me feel fuller longer.
I've taken your test and it works well for me. Cheers.
But were you or were you not in a calorie deficit?
Considering I was eating 1lb of bacon every morning regularly. Tons of real full fat cheese,hard boiled eggs, full fat cottage cheese, sausage balls with cheese for snacks,Steak, hamburger patties and heavy whipping cream (all almost all of these are zero in carbs btw). What do you think? Does that sound like a 1200 calorie or even 1500 calorie menu to you? I'd say NOPE. Have you read the Atkins diet book? These foods are on the "eat all you want" list. Keep in mind at the time I did this I was 5ft 4 female in college who did nothing but study and sit in class and behind a computer all day. No exercise. And YES I lost weight. I went from 185 to 140lbs eating this way. The weight loss took about 6 months and I maintained my weight for over 1 year. NO I didn't count calories because it was not a part of the diet plan (and still is not a part of Atkins plan...all it cares about is reducing carbs.)
My father and grandmother both did the Atkins plan at the same time. They were recommended to do so by their cardiologist. They had blood work drawn before the start of the diet and again at the 1 year mark. They both had dramatic improvements in cholesterol, triglycerides and HDL. (If you read the 23 studies I referenced in previous messages this comes up again and again as a benefit of low carb diets). This is why heart doctors recommend it.
The only reason I choose not to do an ultra low carb diet this way now is because honestly I got super bored of the limited menu. So now I reduce my carbs in a more realistic way that I can maintain happily for the rest of my life. And now I know I can lose without being so drastic in the reduction. I can eat carbs in moderation (I still limit them to 90 a day along with my proteins and veggies.) You notice no where above in any of my other messages I demand everyone do the Atkins diet do you? No. I only advised that low carb diets do work. Because they do.
I've done weight watchers (a reduced calorie plan) and I could not lose more than 10lbs or stick with it properly because it pushed high carb foods like couscous and weight watcher ice cream. My cravings for junk food drove me insane. I was hungry and miserable. I regained the weight in less than two months because I couldn't stick with this low calorie high carb diet. It didn't work for me.
I feel fuller longer with more protein + fats and less starches and carbs. This is why low carb plans work for me.
So weather you choose to believe it or not. I did lose weight eating a high calorie and low carb meal plan.This is my life and my experience dieting. Your more than welcome to do what you want. But it worked for me and it continues to help me stick with the plan I'm on.
Thanks all for your love and support. Cheers. 0 -
I would add carbohydrates to my diet, definitely. Low carb diets not only make you lose muscle, but they make you gain fat. Your body literally thinks that it is starving! Your body is going into survival mode where everything is turned into fat. Low carb diets are becoming a thing of the past. The only fuel our Central Nervous System can use comes from Carbohydrates (the liver can also convert fat and protein into glucose, but that's a completely different topic and your body prefers not to) Oxalate (spelling) is a derivative of carbohydrates, and it is what helps us metabolize fat. Without it fat just stays there or becomes ketone bodies and can lead to ketoacidosis. Low carb diets were definitely a trend.
My advice to you is find out what your maintenance calories are, you can generally calculate those based on activity level, age, etc. and the my fitness pal website/app does a really good job of estimating for everyone. If you are active eat 250 calories less than your "maintenance calories" and if you are sedentary eat 500 less calories than your maintenance.
Eat all of your macro-nutrients (Carbs, Fats, and Proteins)! Depending on how active you are I generally recommend 45-65% of your total calories comes from Carbohydrates, 20-35% from fats, and the remaining 10-35% from protein. Also make sure you are getting adequate amounts of fiber and micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals).
The saying goes "carbohydrates light the fire that burns fat."
your post doesn't make a lick of sense0 -
I would add carbohydrates to my diet, definitely. Low carb diets not only make you lose muscle, but they make you gain fat. Your body literally thinks that it is starving! Your body is going into survival mode where everything is turned into fat. Low carb diets are becoming a thing of the past. The only fuel our Central Nervous System can use comes from Carbohydrates (the liver can also convert fat and protein into glucose, but that's a completely different topic and your body prefers not to) Oxalate (spelling) is a derivative of carbohydrates, and it is what helps us metabolize fat. Without it fat just stays there or becomes ketone bodies and can lead to ketoacidosis. Low carb diets were definitely a trend.
My advice to you is find out what your maintenance calories are, you can generally calculate those based on activity level, age, etc. and the my fitness pal website/app does a really good job of estimating for everyone. If you are active eat 250 calories less than your "maintenance calories" and if you are sedentary eat 500 less calories than your maintenance.
Eat all of your macro-nutrients (Carbs, Fats, and Proteins)! Depending on how active you are I generally recommend 45-65% of your total calories comes from Carbohydrates, 20-35% from fats, and the remaining 10-35% from protein. Also make sure you are getting adequate amounts of fiber and micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals).
The saying goes "carbohydrates light the fire that burns fat."
your post doesn't make a lick of sense
Yep - this is also wrong wrong wrong :noway:0 -
I would add carbohydrates to my diet, definitely. Low carb diets not only make you lose muscle, but they make you gain fat. Your body literally thinks that it is starving! Your body is going into survival mode where everything is turned into fat. Low carb diets are becoming a thing of the past. The only fuel our Central Nervous System can use comes from Carbohydrates (the liver can also convert fat and protein into glucose, but that's a completely different topic and your body prefers not to) Oxalate (spelling) is a derivative of carbohydrates, and it is what helps us metabolize fat. Without it fat just stays there or becomes ketone bodies and can lead to ketoacidosis. Low carb diets were definitely a trend.
My advice to you is find out what your maintenance calories are, you can generally calculate those based on activity level, age, etc. and the my fitness pal website/app does a really good job of estimating for everyone. If you are active eat 250 calories less than your "maintenance calories" and if you are sedentary eat 500 less calories than your maintenance.
Eat all of your macro-nutrients (Carbs, Fats, and Proteins)! Depending on how active you are I generally recommend 45-65% of your total calories comes from Carbohydrates, 20-35% from fats, and the remaining 10-35% from protein. Also make sure you are getting adequate amounts of fiber and micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals).
The saying goes "carbohydrates light the fire that burns fat."
your post doesn't make a lick of sense
Yep - this is also wrong wrong wrong :noway:
Shrug. You're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be.0 -
I would add carbohydrates to my diet, definitely. Low carb diets not only make you lose muscle, but they make you gain fat. Your body literally thinks that it is starving! Your body is going into survival mode where everything is turned into fat. Low carb diets are becoming a thing of the past. The only fuel our Central Nervous System can use comes from Carbohydrates (the liver can also convert fat and protein into glucose, but that's a completely different topic and your body prefers not to) Oxalate (spelling) is a derivative of carbohydrates, and it is what helps us metabolize fat. Without it fat just stays there or becomes ketone bodies and can lead to ketoacidosis. Low carb diets were definitely a trend.
My advice to you is find out what your maintenance calories are, you can generally calculate those based on activity level, age, etc. and the my fitness pal website/app does a really good job of estimating for everyone. If you are active eat 250 calories less than your "maintenance calories" and if you are sedentary eat 500 less calories than your maintenance.
Eat all of your macro-nutrients (Carbs, Fats, and Proteins)! Depending on how active you are I generally recommend 45-65% of your total calories comes from Carbohydrates, 20-35% from fats, and the remaining 10-35% from protein. Also make sure you are getting adequate amounts of fiber and micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals).
The saying goes "carbohydrates light the fire that burns fat."
your post doesn't make a lick of sense
Yep - this is also wrong wrong wrong :noway:
eta: I guess I lost 30+ pound of muscle.
sad panda.0 -
I would add carbohydrates to my diet, definitely. Low carb diets not only make you lose muscle, but they make you gain fat. Your body literally thinks that it is starving! Your body is going into survival mode where everything is turned into fat. Low carb diets are becoming a thing of the past. The only fuel our Central Nervous System can use comes from Carbohydrates (the liver can also convert fat and protein into glucose, but that's a completely different topic and your body prefers not to) Oxalate (spelling) is a derivative of carbohydrates, and it is what helps us metabolize fat. Without it fat just stays there or becomes ketone bodies and can lead to ketoacidosis. Low carb diets were definitely a trend.
My advice to you is find out what your maintenance calories are, you can generally calculate those based on activity level, age, etc. and the my fitness pal website/app does a really good job of estimating for everyone. If you are active eat 250 calories less than your "maintenance calories" and if you are sedentary eat 500 less calories than your maintenance.
Eat all of your macro-nutrients (Carbs, Fats, and Proteins)! Depending on how active you are I generally recommend 45-65% of your total calories comes from Carbohydrates, 20-35% from fats, and the remaining 10-35% from protein. Also make sure you are getting adequate amounts of fiber and micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals).
The saying goes "carbohydrates light the fire that burns fat."
your post doesn't make a lick of sense
Yep - this is also wrong wrong wrong :noway:
Shrug. You're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be.
LOL
I was agreeing with you - hence the yep. The person you quoted - the top quote is wrong :laugh:0 -
I would add carbohydrates to my diet, definitely. Low carb diets not only make you lose muscle, but they make you gain fat. Your body literally thinks that it is starving! Your body is going into survival mode where everything is turned into fat. Low carb diets are becoming a thing of the past. The only fuel our Central Nervous System can use comes from Carbohydrates (the liver can also convert fat and protein into glucose, but that's a completely different topic and your body prefers not to) Oxalate (spelling) is a derivative of carbohydrates, and it is what helps us metabolize fat. Without it fat just stays there or becomes ketone bodies and can lead to ketoacidosis. Low carb diets were definitely a trend.
My advice to you is find out what your maintenance calories are, you can generally calculate those based on activity level, age, etc. and the my fitness pal website/app does a really good job of estimating for everyone. If you are active eat 250 calories less than your "maintenance calories" and if you are sedentary eat 500 less calories than your maintenance.
Eat all of your macro-nutrients (Carbs, Fats, and Proteins)! Depending on how active you are I generally recommend 45-65% of your total calories comes from Carbohydrates, 20-35% from fats, and the remaining 10-35% from protein. Also make sure you are getting adequate amounts of fiber and micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals).
The saying goes "carbohydrates light the fire that burns fat."
your post doesn't make a lick of sense
Yep - this is also wrong wrong wrong :noway:
Shrug. You're entitled to your opinion, however wrong it may be.
LOL
I was agreeing with you - hence the yep. The person you quoted - the top quote is wrong :laugh:
:laugh: my bad, read it wrong.
Welp. That's enough internet for me today.
Time to go rummage for some food
0 -
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Found the link
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
The only one so far that seems more fair - but is STILL self reporting.
And even they admit
'Since food was not provided this conclusion cannot be made with certainty,'
'
Not all studies have shown greater weight loss with a VLCK diet 'Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
This supports my argument - both groups lost the same amount of weight.
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X
"Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss."
no calories assigned and the study admits that the LC group probably ate less.
All are self reporting and while the top study is interesting it is still flawed I'm afraid.
Not to mention that they are very short term studies - the reduction of carbs means a reduction in water weight which affects the process used to determine fat loss.
I'm going to stay it again.
Low carb diets are not a magical bullet that make you gain muscle mass while losing weight.
Calorie restriction is all that is needed for weight loss - if low carb helps you do that, then great, but it is not necessary.
Now I will stop threadjacking the ops thread - and wonder if they will even bother coming back.
The purpose of many of the studies was not to compare one calorie restricted diet to another. Rather to study a low carbohydrate approach (without calorie restriction) independently of the low fat/low calorie approach. For this reason you'll see they did not restrict calories for the low carb dieters in several studies and they say as much. Several of them do control calories however. including the study that shows low carb dieters who ate MORE calories still lost more weight and had significant improvements in cholestorol, tryglicerides etc in the process.
I'm glad you've found what works for you. I'm not saying its a magic bullet but it does work for me and therefore I shared my experiences with the OP. I was asked to provide sources and so I have.
Have a lovely day
Then from a weight loss standpoint the studies are useless because a calorie deficit is the reason for weight loss, you can't take that out of the equation and then say something else "caused" weight loss.
Here's a simple "study" you can do, or anyone else who believes they can eat low carb without worrying about calories.
Figure out your TDEE. For one month eat about 200 calories above your TDEE while eating very low carbs. Of course you will have to replace those calories that were automatically reduced by eating low carb with something else ie. protein or fat. Make sure you are in a calorie surplus everyday while keeping carbs to a minimum. After one month come back and report what happened...
I have a theory what will happen but I will await the "facts"...
Good Luck! :drinker:
Ooops, sorry for offering you a beer above. Too many carbs...
That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day full of bacon and fatty foods. It is possible to lose weight with a low carb (or no carb) diet like Atkins. Calories are not the only way to lose weight.
With that said. I take a more balanced approach. I eat carbs and protien with each meal. If I start stuffing my face with bread I begin craving crap and eating bad things. I feel lowering the carbs I intake helps me feel fuller longer.
I've taken your test and it works well for me. Cheers.
But were you or were you not in a calorie deficit?
Considering I was eating 1lb of bacon every morning regularly. Tons of real full fat cheese,hard boiled eggs, full fat cottage cheese, sausage balls with cheese for snacks,Steak, hamburger patties and heavy whipping cream (all almost all of these are zero in carbs btw). What do you think? Does that sound like a 1200 calorie or even 1500 calorie menu to you? I'd say NOPE. Have you read the Atkins diet book? These foods are on the "eat all you want" list. Keep in mind at the time I did this I was 5ft 4 female in college who did nothing but study and sit in class and behind a computer all day. No exercise. And YES I lost weight. I went from 185 to 140lbs eating this way. The weight loss took about 6 months and I maintained my weight for over 1 year. NO I didn't count calories because it was not a part of the diet plan (and still is not a part of Atkins plan...all it cares about is reducing carbs.)
My father and grandmother both did the Atkins plan at the same time. They were recommended to do so by their cardiologist. They had blood work drawn before the start of the diet and again at the 1 year mark. They both had dramatic improvements in cholesterol, triglycerides and HDL. (If you read the 23 studies I referenced in previous messages this comes up again and again as a benefit of low carb diets). This is why heart doctors recommend it.
The only reason I choose not to do an ultra low carb diet this way now is because honestly I got super bored of the limited menu. So now I reduce my carbs in a more realistic way that I can maintain happily for the rest of my life. And now I know I can lose without being so drastic in the reduction. I can eat carbs in moderation (I still limit them to 90 a day along with my proteins and veggies.) You notice no where above in any of my other messages I demand everyone do the Atkins diet do you? No. I only advised that low carb diets do work. Because they do.
I've done weight watchers (a reduced calorie plan) and I could not lose more than 10lbs or stick with it properly because it pushed high carb foods like couscous and weight watcher ice cream. My cravings for junk food drove me insane. I was hungry and miserable. I regained the weight in less than two months because I couldn't stick with this low calorie high carb diet. It didn't work for me.
I feel fuller longer with more protein + fats and less starches and carbs. This is why low carb plans work for me.
So weather you choose to believe it or not. I did lose weight eating a high calorie and low carb meal plan.This is my life and my experience dieting. Your more than welcome to do what you want. But it worked for me and it continues to help me stick with the plan I'm on.
Thanks all for your love and support. Cheers.
So what you are saying is that you are THE one exception to the Law of Thermodynamics?
I'm sorry but I'm not buying what your selling.
And I'm not saying that Adkins and WW and all these other diets don't work. What I am saying is that ANY diet only works because of a calorie deficit. Whether you are counting calories or not, if weight is lost a calorie deficit is present...0 -
I was 5ft 4 female in college who did nothing but study and sit in class and behind a computer all day.
Did you do online-only classes? I guarantee if you were on an actual college campus going to classes, you were getting plenty of exercise.0 -
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Found the link
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
The only one so far that seems more fair - but is STILL self reporting.
And even they admit
'Since food was not provided this conclusion cannot be made with certainty,'
'
Not all studies have shown greater weight loss with a VLCK diet 'Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
This supports my argument - both groups lost the same amount of weight.
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X
"Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss."
no calories assigned and the study admits that the LC group probably ate less.
All are self reporting and while the top study is interesting it is still flawed I'm afraid.
Not to mention that they are very short term studies - the reduction of carbs means a reduction in water weight which affects the process used to determine fat loss.
I'm going to stay it again.
Low carb diets are not a magical bullet that make you gain muscle mass while losing weight.
Calorie restriction is all that is needed for weight loss - if low carb helps you do that, then great, but it is not necessary.
Now I will stop threadjacking the ops thread - and wonder if they will even bother coming back.
The purpose of many of the studies was not to compare one calorie restricted diet to another. Rather to study a low carbohydrate approach (without calorie restriction) independently of the low fat/low calorie approach. For this reason you'll see they did not restrict calories for the low carb dieters in several studies and they say as much. Several of them do control calories however. including the study that shows low carb dieters who ate MORE calories still lost more weight and had significant improvements in cholestorol, tryglicerides etc in the process.
I'm glad you've found what works for you. I'm not saying its a magic bullet but it does work for me and therefore I shared my experiences with the OP. I was asked to provide sources and so I have.
Have a lovely day
Then from a weight loss standpoint the studies are useless because a calorie deficit is the reason for weight loss, you can't take that out of the equation and then say something else "caused" weight loss.
Here's a simple "study" you can do, or anyone else who believes they can eat low carb without worrying about calories.
Figure out your TDEE. For one month eat about 200 calories above your TDEE while eating very low carbs. Of course you will have to replace those calories that were automatically reduced by eating low carb with something else ie. protein or fat. Make sure you are in a calorie surplus everyday while keeping carbs to a minimum. After one month come back and report what happened...
I have a theory what will happen but I will await the "facts"...
Good Luck! :drinker:
Ooops, sorry for offering you a beer above. Too many carbs...
That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day full of bacon and fatty foods. It is possible to lose weight with a low carb (or no carb) diet like Atkins. Calories are not the only way to lose weight.
With that said. I take a more balanced approach. I eat carbs and protien with each meal. If I start stuffing my face with bread I begin craving crap and eating bad things. I feel lowering the carbs I intake helps me feel fuller longer.
I've taken your test and it works well for me. Cheers.
But were you or were you not in a calorie deficit?
Considering I was eating 1lb of bacon every morning regularly. Tons of real full fat cheese,hard boiled eggs, full fat cottage cheese, sausage balls with cheese for snacks,Steak, hamburger patties and heavy whipping cream (all almost all of these are zero in carbs btw). What do you think? Does that sound like a 1200 calorie or even 1500 calorie menu to you? I'd say NOPE. Have you read the Atkins diet book? These foods are on the "eat all you want" list. Keep in mind at the time I did this I was 5ft 4 female in college who did nothing but study and sit in class and behind a computer all day. No exercise. And YES I lost weight. I went from 185 to 140lbs eating this way. The weight loss took about 6 months and I maintained my weight for over 1 year. NO I didn't count calories because it was not a part of the diet plan (and still is not a part of Atkins plan...all it cares about is reducing carbs.)
My father and grandmother both did the Atkins plan at the same time. They were recommended to do so by their cardiologist. They had blood work drawn before the start of the diet and again at the 1 year mark. They both had dramatic improvements in cholesterol, triglycerides and HDL. (If you read the 23 studies I referenced in previous messages this comes up again and again as a benefit of low carb diets). This is why heart doctors recommend it.
The only reason I choose not to do an ultra low carb diet this way now is because honestly I got super bored of the limited menu. So now I reduce my carbs in a more realistic way that I can maintain happily for the rest of my life. And now I know I can lose without being so drastic in the reduction. I can eat carbs in moderation (I still limit them to 90 a day along with my proteins and veggies.) You notice no where above in any of my other messages I demand everyone do the Atkins diet do you? No. I only advised that low carb diets do work. Because they do.
I've done weight watchers (a reduced calorie plan) and I could not lose more than 10lbs or stick with it properly because it pushed high carb foods like couscous and weight watcher ice cream. My cravings for junk food drove me insane. I was hungry and miserable. I regained the weight in less than two months because I couldn't stick with this low calorie high carb diet. It didn't work for me.
I feel fuller longer with more protein + fats and less starches and carbs. This is why low carb plans work for me.
So weather you choose to believe it or not. I did lose weight eating a high calorie and low carb meal plan.This is my life and my experience dieting. Your more than welcome to do what you want. But it worked for me and it continues to help me stick with the plan I'm on.
Thanks all for your love and support. Cheers.
So what you are saying is that you are THE one exception to the Law of Thermodynamics?
I'm sorry but I'm not buying what your selling.
And I'm not saying that Adkins and WW and all these other diets don't work. What I am saying is that ANY diet only works because of a calorie deficit. Whether you are counting calories or not, if weight is lost a calorie deficit is present...
Nope. simply saying what is shown in 23 scientific studies works for me. *yawn*
Enjoy your opinion. I'm quite comfortable in mine. 0 -
I would add carbohydrates to my diet, definitely. Low carb diets not only make you lose muscle, but they make you gain fat. Your body literally thinks that it is starving! Your body is going into survival mode where everything is turned into fat. Low carb diets are becoming a thing of the past. The only fuel our Central Nervous System can use comes from Carbohydrates (the liver can also convert fat and protein into glucose, but that's a completely different topic and your body prefers not to) Oxalate (spelling) is a derivative of carbohydrates, and it is what helps us metabolize fat.Without it fat just stays there or becomes ketone bodies and can lead to ketoacidosis. Low carb diets were definitely a trend.
My advice to you is find out what your maintenance calories are, you can generally calculate those based on activity level, age, etc. and the my fitness pal website/app does a really good job of estimating for everyone. If you are active eat 250 calories less than your "maintenance calories" and if you are sedentary eat 500 less calories than your maintenance.
Eat all of your macro-nutrients (Carbs, Fats, and Proteins)! Depending on how active you are I generally recommend 45-65% of your total calories comes from Carbohydrates, 20-35% from fats, and the remaining 10-35% from protein. Also make sure you are getting adequate amounts of fiber and micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals).
The saying goes "carbohydrates light the fire that burns fat."
your post doesn't make a lick of sense
Dafuq?:huh:
Dear ignorant masses,
Ketoacidosis is not caused by nutritional ketosis. It is caused by rampantly out of control diabetes when the body produces NO insulin. And also by severe alcoholism. Not nutritional ketosis.
Keto causes concentrations of 1-8 mmol/L in the blood. Most people can't manage to get much over 4 unless they are trying really hard. Generally, between 1 and 3 are the most optimal. Ketoacidosis occurs when the blood concentration of ketones exceeds 20 mmol/L. Huge difference. Not the same. Please, please, for the love of BACON, people!!!:noway:
"Your body literally thinks it's starving." No it doesn't. It is burning fat instead of sugar. Starvation occurs when there is no food source, period.
"low-carb diets are a trend." Nope, been around since the 20s. Doctors prescribe them. Would they, if they thought a person was going to curl up and die as a result? Obviously not,
" Low carb diets are becoming a thing of the past. The only fuel our Central Nervous System can use comes from Carbohydrates": Completely wrong. The brain's preferred source of fuel is ketones and seems to be quite happy with it. And doctors are more and more going to this diet to help control diabetes.
Thank you for the fun trip to Fantasy Land. It was lovely, but we really need to go back to Reality Land. If you would care to continue living in Fantasy Land, I would be very happy with that, but there is no need to drag other people there it live in your apartment in Nutter Hall with you.0 -
I'm still patiently waiting for someone to tell me if I need to remain in a calorie deficit for low carb to work.0
-
Yes.I'm still patiently waiting for someone to tell me if I need to remain in a calorie deficit for low carb to work.0 -
jeez. i had no idea of the sorry plight of the MFP low carber. it must be awful for you guys to have to actually support your claims! imma go ahead and pin a yellow ribbon on my lapel just for you guys. or maybe i should dump a bucket of rice on head and tag other people on facebook?I'm still patiently waiting for someone to tell me if I need to remain in a calorie deficit for low carb to work.
:yawn: Last I saw you were mocking and rude. So, no enlightenment for you.
Perhaps a bunch of people put you on ignore...just a thought.
For those others reading this, the answer is "it depends on the person." I know many people who have lost without a deficit. I personally require some deficit, and I know others who do.
As far as I can see, the difference between plain calorie-deficit diets and low-carb-calorie-deficit (when we are talking about those doing the eating plan for non-medical purposes) is the built in portion-control in the low-carb way of eating. Some people, particularly those who are so sensitive to carbs that they trigger overeating, need that. I don't have diabetes or insulin resistance. Low-carb helps me to keep my carb portions under control and has kept the cravings away. And for me, that means success in the long-term. Without the controlled portions, calorie-deficit alone doesn't work for me. I'd still be 255 and gaining, on the path to Type 2. The carb-high is just too persuasive. Food no longer has hold on me. It's just tasty fuel, and I don't overeat.
Judge it or don't. Agree or don't. Ain't caring either way as I'm about half a pound away from my halfway goal and it only took me about 110 days. Minus 45 lbs. And happier, more energetic, and more clear-minded than I ever was on any other diet. There are much, much fewer days when Chronic Fatigue actually resurfaces than ever before. I exercise 5 days/week. Cheating doesn't ever cross my mind. Unless it is Saturday night, and I go over my calories a little. I'm only human, after all.
Everybody needs to do their own thing. But first they need to figure out what that is. For me it is nutritional ketosis with calorie deficit.0 -
For those others reading this, the answer is "it depends on the person." I know many people who have lost without a deficit.
Based on what do you "know" they lost without a deficit?0 -
For those others reading this, the answer is "it depends on the person." I know many people who have lost without a deficit.
Based on what do you "know" they lost without a deficit?
Why the h*ll would they lie? For all we "know" you haven't done anything you say in your food diary or profile and everything you say in posts is a lie. If we are going to go around "*kitten*"uming everyone is a liar, we'll never get anywhere. I belong to a forum of many, many people who have done NK while not at a deficit. Forums full of thousands of people lying? That's an awfully grand conspiracy theory...The first law of thermodynamics dictates that body mass remains constant when caloric intake equals caloric expenditure. It should be noted, however, that different diets lead to different biochemical pathways that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics. It is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage....Samaha et al. randomly assigned 132 severely obese subjects to a low-carbohydrate or calorie and fat-restricted (low-fat) diet [17]. Seventy-nine subjects completed this six-month study. It should be noted that the difference in consumption of energy from carbohydrate was quite narrow: 51% in the low-fat group and 37% in the low-carbohydrate group. Total energy intake at the 6-month mark was 1567 kcal/day in the low-fat group and 1630 kcal/day in the low-carbohydrate group. Thus, the low-carbohydrate group consumed 54 extra kcal/day. Nevertheless, the low-carbohydrate group lost 5.8 kg (and was still losing weight at 6 months) vs. 1.9 kg (leveled off) in the low-fat group. Both groups were given an exceptional number of contacts with "experts in nutritional consulting", so the possible placebo and nocebo effects would be even more intense here [18]. Greene et al. found that people eating an extra 300 kcal a day on a very-low-carbohydrate diet lost a similar amount of weight during a 12-week study as those on a low-fat diet [19]. Over the course of the study, subjects consumed an extra 25,000 kcal that should have added up to about a 7 pounds weight gain; it did not. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant, so the researchers knew exactly what they ate, and one could not argue that diets were not palatable. (an excerpt from this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/)
But, as no one reads other peoples studies on MFP and/or refuses to accept them out of sheer stubbornness... I'm certain that you will say none of the results in any of the studies cited in the paper (31 of them) were valid.
This is a good one, too, and discusses why the whole "calorie is just a calorie" nonsense violates thermodynamics. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
But for every study or paper there exists an inverse study or paper proving why the first one was BS. So for every calorie-deficit study, someone will post a ketosis paper that is in direct defiance, and we're stuck on a giant, stupid, pointless wheel.
That's ok. I have indeed lost just under 45 lbs and have pictures as evidence to prove my fat a** isn't so fat any longer. I do indeed eat bacon and a lot of meat and fat, to my husband's annoyance, but he's happy with the shape my body is taking now and wouldn't have it any other way. But I could be lying about that...![b]](http://meetville.com/images/quotes/Quotation-Terry-Pratchett-lies-despair-reality-people-Meetville-Quotes-211192.jpg[/b])
0 -
I lost about 30 lbs (really FAST) on Atkins when I was in my 20's. It was because the diet was so restrictive, and I got so sick of meat/cheese, that I essentially just stopped eating. I believe I uttered these exact words before dropping the diet: "I would rather starve to death than eat one more bunless burger".
"Diets" are so much fun. :indifferent:0 -
For those others reading this, the answer is "it depends on the person." I know many people who have lost without a deficit.
Based on what do you "know" they lost without a deficit?
Why the h*ll would they lie? For all we "know" you haven't done anything you say in your food diary or profile and everything you say in posts is a lie. If we are going to go around "*kitten*"uming everyone is a liar, we'll never get anywhere. I belong to a forum of many, many people who have done NK while not at a deficit. Forums full of thousands of people lying? That's an awfully grand conspiracy theory...The first law of thermodynamics dictates that body mass remains constant when caloric intake equals caloric expenditure. It should be noted, however, that different diets lead to different biochemical pathways that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics. It is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage....Samaha et al. randomly assigned 132 severely obese subjects to a low-carbohydrate or calorie and fat-restricted (low-fat) diet [17]. Seventy-nine subjects completed this six-month study. It should be noted that the difference in consumption of energy from carbohydrate was quite narrow: 51% in the low-fat group and 37% in the low-carbohydrate group. Total energy intake at the 6-month mark was 1567 kcal/day in the low-fat group and 1630 kcal/day in the low-carbohydrate group. Thus, the low-carbohydrate group consumed 54 extra kcal/day. Nevertheless, the low-carbohydrate group lost 5.8 kg (and was still losing weight at 6 months) vs. 1.9 kg (leveled off) in the low-fat group. Both groups were given an exceptional number of contacts with "experts in nutritional consulting", so the possible placebo and nocebo effects would be even more intense here [18]. Greene et al. found that people eating an extra 300 kcal a day on a very-low-carbohydrate diet lost a similar amount of weight during a 12-week study as those on a low-fat diet [19]. Over the course of the study, subjects consumed an extra 25,000 kcal that should have added up to about a 7 pounds weight gain; it did not. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant, so the researchers knew exactly what they ate, and one could not argue that diets were not palatable. (an excerpt from this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/)
But, as no one reads other peoples studies on MFP and/or refuses to accept them out of sheer stubbornness... I'm certain that you will say none of the results in any of the studies cited in the paper (31 of them) were valid.
This is a good one, too, and discusses why the whole "calorie is just a calorie" nonsense violates thermodynamics. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
But for every study or paper there exists an inverse study or paper proving why the first one was BS. So for every calorie-deficit study, someone will post a ketosis paper that is in direct defiance, and we're stuck on a giant, stupid, pointless wheel.
That's ok. I have indeed lost just under 45 lbs and have pictures as evidence to prove my fat a** isn't so fat any longer. I do indeed eat bacon and a lot of meat and fat, to my husband's annoyance, but he's happy with the shape my body is taking now and wouldn't have it any other way. But I could be lying about that...
LOL.0 -
Well someone has their knickers in a twist tonight :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0
-
Well someone has their knickers in a twist tonight :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I'm twisted, my knickers are not. It's not fair to malign my innocent knickers in such a manner.
:laugh:
Not upset at all. Really. Just laughing at the absurdity of it all.
I think it's time to hold a service for the horse. It should be laid to rest. There's going to be no coming together. Oil and water = keto and MFP.0 -
Yes.I'm still patiently waiting for someone to tell me if I need to remain in a calorie deficit for low carb to work.
Thanks you for your considerate response. You're much nicer than that bacobits person that keeps posting yawning smileys. I wish all of MFP were more like you0 -
I'm still patiently waiting for someone to tell me if I need to remain in a calorie deficit for low carb to work.
Unless you have access to a lot of test and analysis equipment you don't know if you're in a calorie deficit, but you do need to oxidise more fat than you eat for low carb to work.0 -
I'm still patiently waiting for someone to tell me if I need to remain in a calorie deficit for low carb to work.
Since I started low carb about 10 weeks ago, I've kept track of everything in a spreadsheet, and must say I was curious to see if what I lost was more than what I would have expected to lose with the calorie deficit from my intake. Things vary, like water retention, etc, but from what I've seen with myself, the difference between the two was pretty minimal, a couple of pounds. I mostly attributed it to the water loss that's associated with a lower carb intake, and the reduction of my bodies internal glycogen/ carb stores, and the reduction in water your body retains due to reduced glycogen stores.
Just my experience, but it led me to believe low carb is just a good way to keep to a caloric deficit, as opposed to their being some molecular black magic going on. Same with paleo and other eating programmes, as it was quite easy to see how difficult it was to eat a substantial amount of calories when you cut out the filler and junk foods that give you calories, but little else. Its easy for me to wrap my head around, but it seems difficult for others, probably because they're thinking fat is so calorically dense, wouldn't it simply be so easy to pile on the calories, but what I've found is no, its actually quite difficult to eat amounts of fat beyond a certain point, likewise with protein, as your body tells you quite quickly you're full, whereas with carbs, it seems to take quite a bit longer and usually beyond the point you've eaten enough, to realise you're full, and probably were 10+ mins ago.
In any event, I'm not sure if your question was genuine, but the above is my experience, and happy to talk more if you want to drop me a message, as given the direction this thread has taken, I don't intend to encourage it by posting anything else here 0 -
Yes.I'm still patiently waiting for someone to tell me if I need to remain in a calorie deficit for low carb to work.
Thanks you for your considerate response. You're much nicer than that bacobits person that keeps posting yawning smileys. I wish all of MFP were more like you
Oh dear...Remember when you said this:jeez. i had no idea of the sorry plight of the MFP low carber. it must be awful for you guys to have to actually support your claims! imma go ahead and pin a yellow ribbon on my lapel just for you guys. or maybe i should dump a bucket of rice on head and tag other people on facebook?
That wasn't all that considerate a response...So you can see why I might not have responded favorably to you.
So pots and kettles, or if you prefer "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
Oh, yes...and :yawn: For your benefit entirely since you love it so much. :laugh:
Have a fine day. I'm off to workout.
Keep working it, whatever plan you all choose.
0 -
portion control0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions