Low Calories, or Low Carbs? What is better.....

bcattoes

What is meant by low carb? Is that low total carbs or low net carbs?

Who are you asking?

For me, low carb is 80-100 per day. I count total, not net.

Anyone who will answer (thanks for doing so). I see that term on boards a lot but it is rarely defined.

I read a post the other day where the poster said he ate low carb and tried to stay below 150 carbs, which I thought sounded pretty high. I've seen others say they try to stay < 50, which seems incredibly low to me.

I guess maybe there is no standard definition of a low carb diet??

grinch031

What is meant by low carb? Is that low total carbs or low net carbs?

Who are you asking?

For me, low carb is 80-100 per day. I count total, not net.

Anyone who will answer (thanks for doing so). I see that term on boards a lot but it is rarely defined.

I read a post the other day where the poster said he ate low carb and tried to stay below 150 carbs, which I thought sounded pretty high. I've seen others say they try to stay < 50, which seems incredibly low to me.

I guess maybe there is no standard definition of a low carb diet??

Fiber never counts for your carb intake because they don't get digested for energy. Sugar alcohols (usually found in sugar free candies/sweet foods and some protein bars) are debatable. Some people count them, some count them partially, some don't count them.

steffiejoe

To me low carb is 50 or below total carbs.
I have reached my goal weight (135 :drinker: ) and I maintain my carbs at about 100-110 per day.(still working on my BF). To me this is not low carb.
If I intake 150 or more total carbs repeatedly(daily) I gain weight. So I think I have found my sweet spot so to say.

I have seen different charts with various ranges .

Bikini27

My mom lost weight with a Low Carb diet... that said, I am starting to think it was more because she was making better food choices all around then because they were low carb. When you do any sort of "diet", you are really looking at what you are eating and making different, healthier choices when you were before. As such, you lose weight!

I have done low carb in the past and am now just watching calories (and eating better as a whole). I have lost the SAME amount of weight in the same amount of time. The biggest difference? I think I can actually keep doing what I am doing now!

Ditto. I did a version of South Beach when I was 19, dropped 30+ pounds but I couldn't maintain it because I never phased up. (Three phases, first to "reset" your cravings, second to add in a few things while still losing weight, third to maintain. I was young and stupid, never went into phase 2) If you need a diet plan to follow that speaks to you, I've seen great results with SB, but you have got to follow it to a T.

I am currently just counting calories, enjoying fruit and bread, and I feel fabulous. You have to do what speaks to you :flowerforyou:

redvelvetl0ve

Personally I think that calories helps more with weight loss, but that's just what I'm used to. On here, it's calorie based rather than carb based, which is one of the reasons I think so.

monicaluvsjerry

CALORIES!!!! How many you take in & how many you burn! This is the trick to weight loss for most woman! CARBS works more for men. But we are all different. I guess, its just what your body responds to. For me... Its Calories! Good luck!

Marll

Exactly what vitamins and micronutrients am I missing by limiting grains and fruit? Please be exact.

I'd be willing to bet that nobody can answer this, because there are none. Anything that you can get from a fruit or a grain you can get from a vegtable of some kind without the sugar or carbs associated with the other two. There are also quite a few vitamins/nutrients that are only found in meat (though I don't think that we are debating veganism here).

funkycamper

What is meant by low carb? Is that low total carbs or low net carbs?

Who are you asking?

For me, low carb is 80-100 per day. I count total, not net.

Anyone who will answer (thanks for doing so). I see that term on boards a lot but it is rarely defined.

I read a post the other day where the poster said he ate low carb and tried to stay below 150 carbs, which I thought sounded pretty high. I've seen others say they try to stay < 50, which seems incredibly low to me.

I guess maybe there is no standard definition of a low carb diet??

Most of the standard low-carb diets have phases where you start out lower carb, usually 20 grams/day, usually lasting for only about two weeks and then gradually add back in carbs until you find your sweet spot where you can still lose weight without feeling deprived. So what works for me isn't going to be what works for someone else.

So, yes, I suppose you could say there is no standard definition. Although I think most people would consider anything under around 200 grams/carb per day to be low-carb or, at least, restricted carb, when compared to the food pyramid and the standard American diet.

funkycamper

Personally I think that calories helps more with weight loss, but that's just what I'm used to. On here, it's calorie based rather than carb based, which is one of the reasons I think so.

Well, I have to do both. I use MFP to track my calories and my exercise and then monitor to ensure that I'm staying within my carb "sweet spot". It's no different than watching your macros for nutrition as many people do by using MFP to monitor their protein, fat, sodium, etc. and adjusting their food intake accordingly to hit their targets as close as possible.

funkycamper

Exactly what vitamins and micronutrients am I missing by limiting grains and fruit? Please be exact.

I'd be willing to bet that nobody can answer this, because there are none. Anything that you can get from a fruit or a grain you can get from a vegtable of some kind without the sugar or carbs associated with the other two. There are also quite a few vitamins/nutrients that are only found in meat (though I don't think that we are debating veganism here).

Exactly. And that was my point. And why I don't understand why some people get so freaked out when some of us choose to restrict our carbs by eliminating or greatly reducing the amount of grains in our diet and, for some, fruits as well.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Exactly what vitamins and micronutrients am I missing by limiting grains and fruit? Please be exact.

I'd be willing to bet that nobody can answer this, because there are none. Anything that you can get from a fruit or a grain you can get from a vegtable of some kind without the sugar or carbs associated with the other two. There are also quite a few vitamins/nutrients that are only found in meat (though I don't think that we are debating veganism here).

Exactly. And that was my point. And why I don't understand why some people get so freaked out when some of us choose to restrict our carbs by eliminating or greatly reducing the amount of grains in our diet and, for some, fruits as well.

Because the USDA says we need them............... insert <roll eyes>

rachael510

I have done th Atkins thing low carbs, if you are looking for a quick way to lose a few pounds then low cards are the key but it is not lasting. I did Atkins for a month I lost 23 lbs and that was it after 2 months I had not lost any more weight at all infact I gained 4 lbs eating the exact same things I was eating to lose the weight. Low carbs only can take you so far.
I have now been doing low calorie/ low fat for about a month and my body looks better than it did with Atkins/ low carb. I consume at most 800 calories a day and it is spread out throughout the entire day. I have not jumped on a scale yet but I see and feel the difference. With the low carbs I was always hungry, and felt weak after the first month. With the low cal/ low fat I feel great. I think the best part is that i can eat what I want like frozen yogart, pretzels, a sandwich, and still be on track with my diet. your body will tell you what is right you just have to listen to it.
Example I wake up and eat a dannon lite n fit yogart, within 2 hours I feel metablism burning it up and it is time to eat again. so I grab a bag of popcorn and eat a few handfuls and I am full, but 2 hours later I feel that burning again and eat a little more popcorn, then 2 hours later I will eat a half a sandwich or half of a soup, this continues throughout the day. I think the best part of what I am doing is that I have retrained my stomach to portion size and I am forcing my metablism to constantly work, litterally it does not rest until I go to bed and even then I drink water which keeps it going.

The important thing is that you find what works for you. I was not happy with low carb, I could not eat things that I like, fruit is out of the question, veggies are limited, no bread, dessert, cereal, nothing, just mainly meat, our bodies need the fruit, veggies n bread.

rachael510

Actually you are losing vitamin C, D, B's of all kinds, and minerals, anti-oxidants, metals...etc... just to name a few.... There is a danger in limiting carbs over a period of time it is call karotine or something like that it is where your body gives off a toxic chemical that will eat you liver and splean and gulblatter. It is very dangerous to limit carb consumption like in the Atkins Diet because your body will after so long release this chemical due to lack of other nutrients that you need and you can develop sever health issues because of this chemical.
I breast feed my son when I talked to a few nurses, Doctors, and nutritionists they told me about this and that it is deadly to not only me but to my baby also. If this type of diet gives you your desired results go for it but it is very dangerous. If you look at the Atkins website it only suggests you use the super low carb for a week, 3 max and warns against more then 3 weeks of super low carb intake which is under 24 or 26 carbs per day. Do some research and talk to some professionals before you scorn people..... You will sound a lot more intelligent that way.....LOL good luck.

rachael510

What is meant by low carb? Is that low total carbs or low net carbs?

Who are you asking?

For me, low carb is 80-100 per day. I count total, not net.

Net cards is the way to go it only counts the carbs that your body does not digest naturally, carbs from sugar alochol for example or carbs from protein, these carbs do not count because you digest them naturally and they fuel your body. Carbs from regular sugar and flour are the carbs that take longer to process. I think the best way is to go natural, if it comes from the ground, it is ok if it is created by some ab somewhere then you need to be careful.

Anyone who will answer (thanks for doing so). I see that term on boards a lot but it is rarely defined.

I read a post the other day where the poster said he ate low carb and tried to stay below 150 carbs, which I thought sounded pretty high. I've seen others say they try to stay < 50, which seems incredibly low to me.

I guess maybe there is no standard definition of a low carb diet??

Atkins says 24-26net carbs for the first week to 3 weeks

Most of the standard low-carb diets have phases where you start out lower carb, usually 20 grams/day, usually lasting for only about two weeks and then gradually add back in carbs until you find your sweet spot where you can still lose weight without feeling deprived. So what works for me isn't going to be what works for someone else.

So, yes, I suppose you could say there is no standard definition. Although I think most people would consider anything under around 200 grams/carb per day to be low-carb or, at least, restricted carb, when compared to the food pyramid and the standard American diet.

bcattoes

What is meant by low carb? Is that low total carbs or low net carbs?

Who are you asking?

For me, low carb is 80-100 per day. I count total, not net.

Anyone who will answer (thanks for doing so). I see that term on boards a lot but it is rarely defined.

I read a post the other day where the poster said he ate low carb and tried to stay below 150 carbs, which I thought sounded pretty high. I've seen others say they try to stay < 50, which seems incredibly low to me.

I guess maybe there is no standard definition of a low carb diet??

Most of the standard low-carb diets have phases where you start out lower carb, usually 20 grams/day, usually lasting for only about two weeks and then gradually add back in carbs until you find your sweet spot where you can still lose weight without feeling deprived. So what works for me isn't going to be what works for someone else.

So, yes, I suppose you could say there is no standard definition. Although I think most people would consider anything under around 200 grams/carb per day to be low-carb or, at least, restricted carb, when compared to the food pyramid and the standard American diet.

Thanks. The 200 number is a little higher than I expected. I think that is what MFP has as my default recommendation before exercise. I don't count carbs but average around 130 total carbs, and a little less than 100 net carbs, per day according to MFP reports (with several high and low spikes). I've always considered my diet as moderate carbs.

tigersword

I don't think you can really use a specific gram number to determine low carb or not. I would guess it should be percentage based.

300 carbs a day could seem high, but on a 3,000 calorie a day diet, it's only about 40%, which I would consider moderate. 200 would be low for a 3,000 calorie a day diet, as that would be about 25%. For me I consider anything under 30% as low carb, as I personally think a 1/3rd balance of each macro is ideal.

And yes, I know 3,000 calories a day would be high, I was just using it for perspective. For a 2,000 calorie diet, 200 grams would be 40%. I would say low for 2,000 would be about 150 grams.

Cindym82

usually if you cut out carbs all together when you start introducing them into your diet again you gain back all of your weight plus some. Its better to balance everything as a whole instead of getting rid of them

bcattoes

I don't think you can really use a specific gram number to determine low carb or not. I would guess it should be percentage based.

300 carbs a day could seem high, but on a 3,000 calorie a day diet, it's only about 40%, which I would consider moderate. 200 would be low for a 3,000 calorie a day diet, as that would be about 25%. For me I consider anything under 30% as low carb, as I personally think a 1/3rd balance of each macro is ideal.

And yes, I know 3,000 calories a day would be high, I was just using it for perspective. For a 2,000 calorie diet, 200 grams would be 40%. I would say low for 2,000 would be about 150 grams.

Yes, the percent does make more sense. My average is about 30% calories from carbs, but it does vary greatly day to day.

Marll

usually if you cut out carbs all together when you start introducing them into your diet again you gain back all of your weight plus some. Its better to balance everything as a whole instead of getting rid of them

And therein lies the issue most people fall into. They go back to "normal" Standard American Diet (SAD) eating with the same habits they had before that made them fat to begin with and blame it on low carb diets being flawed. I never hear of people that go on low fat diets that go back to eating "normal" blaming it on low fat diets, they just blame fat and most people seem fine with the idea of cutting fat permanantly from a diet, but mention carbs and they go nuts.

You basically have a few choices in my opinion:

1. Eat less on a calorie restriced diet. Generally obsess about food and start and end each day hungry.
2. Eat a low fat diet. Salivate over your co-worker's steak lunch because it smells great and wonder why they can eat that and stay slim. Generally obsess about food that you can't have and start and end each day hungry.
3. Low carb diet. Generally don't think about food because you're never hungry. Long for bread and pasta occasionally and perhaps endulge occasionally. Start and end each day feeling satisfied.

This comes from my experience anyway. There is no reason at all to "add carbs back in" as most people always say because they are generally unnecessary, or at least in the form that Americans consume them. If I "needed" carbs for more energy because of a specific activity I would supplement with things like sweet potatoes, not starchy wheats and other processed junk.

grinch031

usually if you cut out carbs all together when you start introducing them into your diet again you gain back all of your weight plus some. Its better to balance everything as a whole instead of getting rid of them

And therein lies the issue most people fall into. They go back to "normal" Standard American Diet (SAD) eating with the same habits they had before that made them fat to begin with and blame it on low carb diets being flawed. I never hear of people that go on low fat diets that go back to eating "normal" blaming it on low fat diets, they just blame fat and most people seem fine with the idea of cutting fat permanantly from a diet, but mention carbs and they go nuts.

You basically have a few choices in my opinion:

1. Eat less on a calorie restriced diet. Generally obsess about food and start and end each day hungry.
2. Eat a low fat diet. Salivate over your co-worker's steak lunch because it smells great and wonder why they can eat that and stay slim. Generally obsess about food that you can't have and start and end each day hungry.
3. Low carb diet. Generally don't think about food because you're never hungry. Long for bread and pasta occasionally and perhaps endulge occasionally. Start and end each day feeling satisfied.

This comes from my experience anyway. There is no reason at all to "add carbs back in" as most people always say because they are generally unnecessary, or at least in the form that Americans consume them. If I "needed" carbs for more energy because of a specific activity I would supplement with things like sweet potatoes, not starchy wheats and other processed junk.

Well said. You don't tell an alcoholic to gradually start introducing drinks back into their life, otherwise they will revert back to their old ways. Its a slippery slope.

My motto is you don't use temporary solutions to solve permanent problems.

bcattoes

usually if you cut out carbs all together when you start introducing them into your diet again you gain back all of your weight plus some. Its better to balance everything as a whole instead of getting rid of them

And therein lies the issue most people fall into. They go back to "normal" Standard American Diet (SAD) eating with the same habits they had before that made them fat to begin with and blame it on low carb diets being flawed. I never hear of people that go on low fat diets that go back to eating "normal" blaming it on low fat diets, they just blame fat and most people seem fine with the idea of cutting fat permanantly from a diet, but mention carbs and they go nuts.

You basically have a few choices in my opinion:

1. Eat less on a calorie restriced diet. Generally obsess about food and start and end each day hungry.
2. Eat a low fat diet. Salivate over your co-worker's steak lunch because it smells great and wonder why they can eat that and stay slim. Generally obsess about food that you can't have and start and end each day hungry.
3. Low carb diet. Generally don't think about food because you're never hungry. Long for bread and pasta occasionally and perhaps endulge occasionally. Start and end each day feeling satisfied.

This comes from my experience anyway. There is no reason at all to "add carbs back in" as most people always say because they are generally unnecessary, or at least in the form that Americans consume them. If I "needed" carbs for more energy because of a specific activity I would supplement with things like sweet potatoes, not starchy wheats and other processed junk.

1. You don't have to be hungry on a calorie restrictive diet. In fact, if you are eating healthy foods and exercising, it's unlikely that you will be hungry.
2 & 3. Low fat or low carb are not the only diet options, or even the best choices for many people.

My experience is that if I focus on healthy foods and flavor, rather than what macronutrient group a food falls into, it's much easier to formulate a diet I can live with long term. A diet that doesn't leave me hungry or with unsatisfied cravings. A diet full of variety and textures and flavor.

CoryIda

My experience is that if I focus on healthy foods and flavor, rather than what macronutrient group a food falls into, it's much easier to formulate a diet I can live with long term. A diet that doesn't leave me hungry or with unsatisfied cravings. A diet full of variety and textures and flavor.

I totally agree.
Also, in choosing nutritious, well-balanced meals and snacks, you can actually eat a LOT of food for not a lot of calories.

Marll

1. You don't have to be hungry on a calorie restrictive diet. In fact, if you are eating healthy foods and exercising, it's unlikely that you will be hungry.
2 & 3. Low fat or low carb are not the only diet options, or even the best choices for many people.

My experience is that if I focus on healthy foods and flavor, rather than what macronutrient group a food falls into, it's much easier to formulate a diet I can live with long term. A diet that doesn't leave me hungry or with unsatisfied cravings. A diet full of variety and textures and flavor.

I did say in my experience, and I certainly agree that those are not the only options, just a few of the things that I have done in the past. For me calorie restriction and low fat just don't work very well I'm always hungry on both of them and at least for low fat I feel lethargic, get sick way more often and quite frankly pretty much every low fat food tastes horrible. I get plenty of variety from low carb and have eaten things on a regular basis that I had no idea about prior to eating this way and pretty much never factor into the SAD.

I also find from a purely weight loss perspective (or better yet a FAT loss perspective) that low carbbing is far superior for me. Sure I've dropped weight in the past with calorie restriction and lower fat diets, but I felt horrible and quite a bit of my weight loss was also muscle (based on appearance and my athletic performance). I also find it much harder to loose weight without working out like a fiend or taking stimulants on anything but low carb, which I can (and have to for my job really) sit on my butt all day and see results.

CoryIda

1. You don't have to be hungry on a calorie restrictive diet. In fact, if you are eating healthy foods and exercising, it's unlikely that you will be hungry.
2 & 3. Low fat or low carb are not the only diet options, or even the best choices for many people.

My experience is that if I focus on healthy foods and flavor, rather than what macronutrient group a food falls into, it's much easier to formulate a diet I can live with long term. A diet that doesn't leave me hungry or with unsatisfied cravings. A diet full of variety and textures and flavor.

I did say in my experience, and I certainly agree that those are not the only options, just a few of the things that I have done in the past. For me calorie restriction and low fat just don't work very well I'm always hungry on both of them and at least for low fat I feel lethargic, get sick way more often and quite frankly pretty much every low fat food tastes horrible. I get plenty of variety from low carb and have eaten things on a regular basis that I had no idea about prior to eating this way and pretty much never factor into the SAD.

I also find from a purely weight loss perspective (or better yet a FAT loss perspective) that low carbbing is far superior for me. Sure I've dropped weight in the past with calorie restriction and lower fat diets, but I felt horrible and quite a bit of my weight loss was also muscle (based on appearance and my athletic performance). I also find it much harder to loose weight without working out like a fiend or taking stimulants on anything but low carb, which I can (and have to for my job really) sit on my butt all day and see results.

Without restricting carbs, taking any pills, or doing anything crazy (just stuck with moderate exercise, plenty of water, and nutritious, well-balanced meals and snacks in sensible portions), I shed 125+ pounds and went from 56% body fat to 23% body fat. I'm pretty sure the carbs didn't interfere with my fat loss.

grinch031

1. You don't have to be hungry on a calorie restrictive diet. In fact, if you are eating healthy foods and exercising, it's unlikely that you will be hungry.
2 & 3. Low fat or low carb are not the only diet options, or even the best choices for many people.

My experience is that if I focus on healthy foods and flavor, rather than what macronutrient group a food falls into, it's much easier to formulate a diet I can live with long term. A diet that doesn't leave me hungry or with unsatisfied cravings. A diet full of variety and textures and flavor.

I did say in my experience, and I certainly agree that those are not the only options, just a few of the things that I have done in the past. For me calorie restriction and low fat just don't work very well I'm always hungry on both of them and at least for low fat I feel lethargic, get sick way more often and quite frankly pretty much every low fat food tastes horrible. I get plenty of variety from low carb and have eaten things on a regular basis that I had no idea about prior to eating this way and pretty much never factor into the SAD.

I also find from a purely weight loss perspective (or better yet a FAT loss perspective) that low carbbing is far superior for me. Sure I've dropped weight in the past with calorie restriction and lower fat diets, but I felt horrible and quite a bit of my weight loss was also muscle (based on appearance and my athletic performance). I also find it much harder to loose weight without working out like a fiend or taking stimulants on anything but low carb, which I can (and have to for my job really) sit on my butt all day and see results.

Without restricting carbs, taking any pills, or doing anything crazy (just stuck with moderate exercise, plenty of water, and nutritious, well-balanced meals and snacks in sensible portions), I shed 125+ pounds and went from 56% body fat to 23% body fat. I'm pretty sure the carbs didn't interfere with my fat loss.

A lot of times the foods that cause the most problems for people are sugar and refined carbs. By adopting a "well balanced" low-calorie diet, they often inadvertently remove the offending carbs and reduce their total carb intake as well. So its hard to say if carbs had an effect on you or not based on this testimony.

mrsgoodwine

It's all about calories in... calories out. Low carb generally produces less calories. I say you count your calories and eat some healthy carbs

bcattoes

1. You don't have to be hungry on a calorie restrictive diet. In fact, if you are eating healthy foods and exercising, it's unlikely that you will be hungry.
2 & 3. Low fat or low carb are not the only diet options, or even the best choices for many people.

My experience is that if I focus on healthy foods and flavor, rather than what macronutrient group a food falls into, it's much easier to formulate a diet I can live with long term. A diet that doesn't leave me hungry or with unsatisfied cravings. A diet full of variety and textures and flavor.

I did say in my experience, and I certainly agree that those are not the only options, just a few of the things that I have done in the past. For me calorie restriction and low fat just don't work very well I'm always hungry on both of them and at least for low fat I feel lethargic, get sick way more often and quite frankly pretty much every low fat food tastes horrible. I get plenty of variety from low carb and have eaten things on a regular basis that I had no idea about prior to eating this way and pretty much never factor into the SAD.

I also find from a purely weight loss perspective (or better yet a FAT loss perspective) that low carbbing is far superior for me. Sure I've dropped weight in the past with calorie restriction and lower fat diets, but I felt horrible and quite a bit of my weight loss was also muscle (based on appearance and my athletic performance). I also find it much harder to loose weight without working out like a fiend or taking stimulants on anything but low carb, which I can (and have to for my job really) sit on my butt all day and see results.

Without restricting carbs, taking any pills, or doing anything crazy (just stuck with moderate exercise, plenty of water, and nutritious, well-balanced meals and snacks in sensible portions), I shed 125+ pounds and went from 56% body fat to 23% body fat. I'm pretty sure the carbs didn't interfere with my fat loss.

A lot of times the foods that cause the most problems for people are sugar and refined carbs. By adopting a "well balanced" low-calorie diet, they often inadvertently remove the offending carbs and reduce their total carb intake as well. So its hard to say if carbs had an effect on you or not based on this testimony.

It suggests that the type of carbphydrate is the important thing to watch (i.e. eat whole grains, vegetables and fruit and limit processed grains and sugars). Which is the recommendation of most doctors and nutritionists.

Suggesting a low carb diet because some carbs (e.g. processed grains and sugar) are not healthy is no better than suggesting a low fat diet because some fats are not healthy.

grinch031

It suggests that the type of carbphydrate is the important thing to watch (i.e. eat whole grains, vegetables and fruit and limit processed grains and sugars). Which is the recommendation of most doctors and nutritionists.

Suggesting a low carb diet because some carbs (e.g. processed grains and sugar) are not healthy is no better than suggesting a low fat diet because some fats are not healthy.

True but the claim that ones needs the recommended amount of "healthy" carbs is unsubstantiated and based largely on the fat fear. Now its coming to light that fat is not really the enemy, so there is no need to eat so many carbs.

funkycamper

I have done th Atkins thing low carbs, if you are looking for a quick way to lose a few pounds then low cards are the key but it is not lasting. I did Atkins for a month I lost 23 lbs and that was it after 2 months I had not lost any more weight at all infact I gained 4 lbs eating the exact same things I was eating to lose the weight. Low carbs only can take you so far.
I have now been doing low calorie/ low fat for about a month and my body looks better than it did with Atkins/ low carb. I consume at most 800 calories a day and it is spread out throughout the entire day. I have not jumped on a scale yet but I see and feel the difference. With the low carbs I was always hungry, and felt weak after the first month. With the low cal/ low fat I feel great. I think the best part is that i can eat what I want like frozen yogart, pretzels, a sandwich, and still be on track with my diet. your body will tell you what is right you just have to listen to it.
Example I wake up and eat a dannon lite n fit yogart, within 2 hours I feel metablism burning it up and it is time to eat again. so I grab a bag of popcorn and eat a few handfuls and I am full, but 2 hours later I feel that burning again and eat a little more popcorn, then 2 hours later I will eat a half a sandwich or half of a soup, this continues throughout the day. I think the best part of what I am doing is that I have retrained my stomach to portion size and I am forcing my metablism to constantly work, litterally it does not rest until I go to bed and even then I drink water which keeps it going.

The important thing is that you find what works for you. I was not happy with low carb, I could not eat things that I like, fruit is out of the question, veggies are limited, no bread, dessert, cereal, nothing, just mainly meat, our bodies need the fruit, veggies n bread.

800 calories/day is dangerously low. I would hesitate to take diet advice from someone who thinks this is a good idea.

Considering your last paragraph, you clearly did not read the research and do low-carb the way Atkins and most other plans recommend. If you had, you would know that you eat lots of vegetables and, as you move up the carb ladder, and fruits (especially berries). And it's very possible for most people to eat breads and desserts in limited portions. No wonder the low-carb plan didn't work for you. You simply didn't do it right.

Marll

It's all about calories in... calories out. Low carb generally produces less calories. I say you count your calories and eat some healthy carbs

Incorrect IMO.

PER GRAM
Macronutrient Calories
Protein 4
Carbohydrate 4
Fat 9

That's right, 1 gram of fat has over 2x the calories of a gram of carbohydrates. I have upped my fat intake considerably, roughly 25% since going low carb/paleo and dropped my carb intake by roughly 16% for a net gain in calories, yet somehow I continue to loose weight.