Low carb or calories, which is best? which will work?
Replies
-
So if I read your reply correctly, I am either eating too much, or not enough, and I should eat less or eat more to fix it?? LOL
I get what you are saying though...
I do not weigh my food, I have just been measuring with cups, tablespoons, etc, so I guess there is some room for error - but when the majority of my food has been veggies I can't see that any errors would put me wayyy over calorie wise...
As for exercise, ha. I kinda don't. I had MFP give me a recommendation based on mostly sedentiary and I do work on my feet all day. I have been working two full time jobs so I haven't had time to exercise, that is why I was focusing on my food. My recommendation was 1750 calories a day, and I have usually been at or under. Even today I cheated with a cupcake and I am still under calories...
So you picked non-exercise level of sedentary, as in 45 hrs week deskjob/commute - but you work on your feet all day.
So that is extra deficit right there.
And MFP created a deficit with your eating goal too.
And you eat less than eating goal creating a bigger deficit.
You are correct, you'd have to be awful with food logging for vegetables to badly overcome so many deficits.
Usually it's measuring calorie dense foods compared to weighing - and getting many times during the day where you are eating 100 more than you thought.
That kind of mistakes add up.
Vegetables and 10-30 calories extra won't.
So you might reread that link with the knowledge that you are creating a really big deficit.
You might think of it like this.
If no weight loss for several weeks - you are eating at maintenance right now.
Whether your logged foods are dead on correct or not for what shows as calories eaten, and perhaps a tad more than shown, whatever the level is, is maintenance.
The big questions are:
Is it potential maintenance, meaning your logging is so bad you are eating that much more, but your body is humming along at full speed metabolism?
Or is it suppressed maintenance, meaning your body has adapted slower and wiped out the deficit you had, and along with other things that happen when you undereat, you are metabolically efficient now?
Now, you could try eating less first. And guess what happens if it's the second issue ....
If you have a lot of stress in life (2 jobs?), that makes it even harder on your body with stress hormones playing havoc.
How about a 2 week test to destress?
Eat 250 calories more than normal. Find whatever average TOTAL eating level you've been doing for last several weeks - and eat 250 more than that daily for 2 weeks. Meet that goal dead on, gotta accomplish it. Find almonds, peanut butter - weigh them all as they are calorie dense.
If you were truly eating at potential maintenance prior, you will gain 1 lb slowly over the 2 weeks. Reread that. 1 lb.
If you are at suppressed maintenance, you will gain more and/or faster water weight in first week. The same fast water weight you dropped going in to a diet. You were going to gain it back eventually anyway, so don't worry about it.
If you do gain 1 lb slowly over 2 weeks, then prior eating level really was potential maintenance.
Find 500 calories in your diet to cut out from that prior level. No need to even get more accurate with logging, just find 500 real calories to cut.
So while you may log what looks like a low number, it probably higher with inaccuracies.
But, if you do gain fast water weight it means you just topped off glycogen stores with attached water that were depleted, which wouldn't have been depleted eating at potential maintenance, which means prior level was suppressed maintenance.
That week is lost now, do the 2 week test again, with 250 more calories. Yep, 500 in total over prior level.
Now, here's the thing to see that's not that bad.
While you write down the actual number you are going to hit, go ahead and correct your profile setup.
Change activity level to Lightly Active, unless both jobs are on your feet.
If both jobs are standing or moving mostly, Active is correct.
Set weight loss goal to 1 lb weekly.
Notice the maintenance figure shown on results page.
How does that number compare to what you are going to be eating with 250 more?
Still higher than what you'll be eating?
Then I'm betting the first week will be fast water weight gain, and you'll be going up even 250 higher again.
How does that now 500 total higher match the MFP suggested maintenance level?
Just suggestions, but what is 2 weeks after all this time and aggravation?
I'm not sure I understand the difference between maintenance and suppressed maintenance? Isn't maintenance, maintenance? or do you mean that I was starving myself?
I took an average since the beginning of March. March was lower than April was, but the average is 1610. I reset my MFP goals, and I guess I already had it at lightly active, oops. So I got the same total as I stated before, 1750. so I guess a difference of 140, but I wasn't counting properly, so I'm guessing I was at or slightly over on average? So considering I was pretty close to my calorie goal, should I still be adding 250 or is the whole point moot?0 -
[/quote]
"I do work outside my home (2 jobs, soon to be 1), and have to usually eat 2 meals a day at work. I don't carry measuring cups with me, LOL, but both my workplaces have kitchens where those materials are available. I have eaten 2 meals out in the last 8 weeks, so I am not worried about restaurant meals."
[/quote]
Eating at work seems fairly manageable to me - either take a food scale to work and leave it in your work kitchen or in your locker or your desk. Buy 2 scales - one for home, one for work.
Digital food scales are cheap - I'm not sure where you live but under $20 in Australia, and available at Woolworths ,Target, any large supermarket or chain store.
Or pack your lunch at home and take to work in a lunch box. Weigh/measure/scan at home before you go.
The occasional restaurant meals wont matter - pick healthiest low calorie options if you can and eye ball/guestimate amounts. If this is only once a month on average, it wont dent your progress.
ETA: sorry, quote didn't work properly.0 -
I'm not sure I understand the difference between maintenance and suppressed maintenance? Isn't maintenance, maintenance? or do you mean that I was starving myself?
I took an average since the beginning of March. March was lower than April was, but the average is 1610. I reset my MFP goals, and I guess I already had it at lightly active, oops. So I got the same total as I stated before, 1750. so I guess a difference of 140, but I wasn't counting properly, so I'm guessing I was at or slightly over on average? So considering I was pretty close to my calorie goal, should I still be adding 250 or is the whole point moot?
Potential maintenance - what your body would burn without being in a diet.
Suppressed maintenance - what it can become from undereating in a diet.
Read that link in my first post. The worst case example there suppressed their maintenance my 500 calories. 500 lower than it was expected and needed to be. 500 below the normal and expected reasons it would lower.
Not starving, but the response from the body is the first step in that stress. Move less than normal, lose muscle mass, and on top of that burn less.
So you understand that 1750 is the eating goal that _already_ has a deficit from your maintenance.
And you were below that by 140.
So your logging inaccuracy would have to be 140 and your whole deficit amount. Not just the 140.
And really doesn't matter what the deficit eating goal was - you, eating 1610, or a tad higher if inaccurate - are basically at maintenance now. I think the evidence points to suppressed maintenance.
Then again, if you have dieted before and lost normal amounts of muscle mass already, your maintenance may be less. But sure hate to lose more muscle mass and turn this into a life-long habit.
Read the info, you decide what you want to do.
If you think your food logging was that bad really - then drop your calories by 500 and eat 1100 calories to lose 1 lb weekly.
You'll know it's an inaccurate 1100 calories, and in reality eating somewhere above there.
But as weight drops, your daily energy burn drops. Therefore your eating level must drop to keep losing weight. Usually roughly 100 calories per 10 lbs.
How many lbs to go?
What will be the eating level then? 1100 now, 1000, then 900, then 800, then 700, then .... really? Sustainable, adherable?
Of course as some point you should switch to only 250 less calories. But still, how low can you go?
And what does maintenance look like? 600 plus the 250 deficit you had - eating 850 for maintenance? And anything over, vacation, splurges, ect, are going on as fat, because they are excess to maintenance.
Or test for 2 weeks.0 -
get a scale...it makes a huge difference0
-
Do you want to eat low carb the rest of your life?
Pick what is more sustainable for you for a lifestyle change. I follow low calorie because I know I can follow that plan until I ultimately up my calories to maintain again.
This I understand and agree with this.
Exercise is key too.....I follow low calorie, logging everything everyday and putting in a 45 minute power walk each day and have been consistently losing 1 -1.5 per week. I have been using Leslie Sansone You tube 3Mile Power walk when the weather is not so inviting.... Don't give up.....As previously suggested...take a break...clean slate and start again! good Luck0 -
Short answer - try both again from the start - follow them strictly.
If you are doing them correctly they will both work. There is no quick fix both diets require sacrifice.
Pay the price and get the results.
If you are on Low Carb at the moment, understand that for weight loss it is not a free pass to eat as much as you want - you still need to be in a deficit to loss weight (it just sometimes makes it easier to eat less as you may not feel as hungry as you do on high carb).
If you are just calorie counting again your loss will be reliant on the deficit you eat.
Are you incorporating exercise into your weight loss strategy - maybe if you are you should switch it up (if you are doing mainly cardio, try some anaerobic exercise).
Good luck0 -
You've already got good advice. But weighing is really important so I'll say it again! I found that a tablespoon of peanut butter was actually closer to 30g so double the calories I thought. Oats were another eye opener, too. It doesn't take much to really put your intake out of whack.
If you're not losing, chances are you are eating more than you think. The way to solve this is to weigh and log every little thing. Some people might say not weighing works for them but it is clearly not working for you, so you need to weigh your food. Yes it seems like a pain but you get used to it very quickly and it works. Tbh it's also not much of a pain, it takes about 5 seconds. How much do you want this?
I'm confused as to how you are eating low carb yet mainly vegetables, too. Yes a few extra non starchy veg are unlikely to put you over but you must also be eating other things.
Personally I hate low carb but everyone is different. However even if you like it you need to count calories, it's not a way to magically sidestep the laws of thermodynamics
Eta having looked at your food diary I think you ate eating more than you think. High cal foods like mayo and butter just can't be measured by tablespoons accurately, or cheese by cubic inches! 50g of beef is suspiciously small for a meal (most would have 100+ for a small portion) 3 large eggs is probably more like 300 cal than 200 and so on.0 -
You've already got good advice. But weighing is really important so I'll say it again! I found that a tablespoon of peanut butter was actually closer to 30g so double the calories I thought. Oats were another eye opener, too. It doesn't take much to really put your intake out of whack.
If you're not losing, chances are you are eating more than you think. The way to solve this is to weigh and log every little thing. Some people might say not weighing works for them but it is clearly not working for you, so you need to weigh your food. Yes it seems like a pain but you get used to it very quickly and it works. Tbh it's also not much of a pain, it takes about 5 seconds. How much do you want this?
I'm confused as to how you are eating low carb yet mainly vegetables, too. Yes a few extra non starchy veg are unlikely to put you over but you must also be eating other things.
Personally I hate low carb but everyone is different. However even if you like it you need to count calories, it's not a way to magically sidestep the laws of thermodynamics
How is eating low carb and not logging your food magically sidestepping the laws of thermodynamics?0 -
Because it's not a license to eat several thousand calories a day and still lose weight. You still need a deficit.
OP isn't losing because she's not in a deficit. Low carb or not is irrelevant to that.0 -
Because it's not a license to eat several thousand calories a day and still lose weight. You still need a deficit.
OP isn't losing because she's not in a deficit. Low carb or not is irrelevant to that.
Agreed, but a lot of people on low carb find eating in a deficit without logging food easier because of the reduced appetite.
It is certainly wise for someone switching from calorie counting to low carb to keep recording food for a period of time until they get efficient at controlling there eating pattern.0 -
Because it's not a license to eat several thousand calories a day and still lose weight. You still need a deficit.
OP isn't losing because she's not in a deficit. Low carb or not is irrelevant to that.
Agreed, but a lot of people on low carb find eating in a deficit without logging food easier because of the reduced appetite.
It is certainly wise for someone switching from calorie counting to low carb to keep recording food for a period of time until they get efficient at controlling there eating pattern.
My point is that this is clearly not working for the OP so she needs to count calories. Low carb doesn't negate the need for a deficit.0 -
Add exercise to your routine. I know you're busy. If you don't have time for a complete workout, break it up... Use the stairs wherever you go. Try 2sets of squats at morning tea/lunch and press ups after work. A lunch time walk, 10-15mins. It all adds up.
I am also experimenting with a low carb diet. Have found that I need to plan ahead to keep on track.0 -
weigh and measure your foods accurately - so yes a scale is needed
I also noticed you don't track your sodium - just wondering if it's been high at all? High sodium can cause some water retention so the stall on the scale could also be that. I pay most attention to getting enough protein, try to stay under on sodium, everything else falls into place.
If you have no medical reason to track your sugars I would switch it up for sodium.0 -
Because it's not a license to eat several thousand calories a day and still lose weight. You still need a deficit.
OP isn't losing because she's not in a deficit. Low carb or not is irrelevant to that.
Agreed, but a lot of people on low carb find eating in a deficit without logging food easier because of the reduced appetite.
It is certainly wise for someone switching from calorie counting to low carb to keep recording food for a period of time until they get efficient at controlling there eating pattern.
My point is that this is clearly not working for the OP so she needs to count calories. Low carb doesn't negate the need for a deficit.
Who is suggesting that low carb negates the need to eat in a deficit?0 -
OP try to incorporate some exercise - even if you only start with some easy walks each day or every other day.0
-
Because it's not a license to eat several thousand calories a day and still lose weight. You still need a deficit.
OP isn't losing because she's not in a deficit. Low carb or not is irrelevant to that.
Agreed, but a lot of people on low carb find eating in a deficit without logging food easier because of the reduced appetite.
It is certainly wise for someone switching from calorie counting to low carb to keep recording food for a period of time until they get efficient at controlling there eating pattern.
My point is that this is clearly not working for the OP so she needs to count calories. Low carb doesn't negate the need for a deficit.
Who is suggesting that low carb negates the need to eat in a deficit?
Tennis Dude no low carb book I've ever read mentions calorie counting! It's the big selling point!
You know that! We know that! It's what makes it so appealing! Freedom!0 -
If you do not lose on a calorie deficit, there might be several reasons for this:
1) Calorie limit is too high
2) Under-estimating your calories
3) Over-estimating your bmr and/or cals burnt during exercise
4) Gaining muscle
5) Undiagnosed health condition
For me... I'd stick to calories because it's easiest... And I like carby goodness.0 -
Because it's not a license to eat several thousand calories a day and still lose weight. You still need a deficit.
OP isn't losing because she's not in a deficit. Low carb or not is irrelevant to that.
Agreed, but a lot of people on low carb find eating in a deficit without logging food easier because of the reduced appetite.
It is certainly wise for someone switching from calorie counting to low carb to keep recording food for a period of time until they get efficient at controlling there eating pattern.
My point is that this is clearly not working for the OP so she needs to count calories. Low carb doesn't negate the need for a deficit.
Who is suggesting that low carb negates the need to eat in a deficit?
Tennis Dude no low carb book I've ever read mentions calorie counting! It's the big selling point!
You know that! We know that! It's what makes it so appealing! Freedom!
Low carb isn't for everyone, some people like the comfort of logging food. I'm not a low carb salesman and especially on this thread the OP clearly would like to stick with calorie counting (or I think that's what she wants to do, now that I've read through the other posts).
I'm curious why kuolo thinks that low carb is claiming to be a weight loss diet, without having to eat in a deficit?0 -
I'm not sure I understand the difference between maintenance and suppressed maintenance? Isn't maintenance, maintenance? or do you mean that I was starving myself?
Eating 1700 calories and maintaining - you're just eating too much.0 -
Because it's not a license to eat several thousand calories a day and still lose weight. You still need a deficit.
OP isn't losing because she's not in a deficit. Low carb or not is irrelevant to that.
Agreed, but a lot of people on low carb find eating in a deficit without logging food easier because of the reduced appetite.
It is certainly wise for someone switching from calorie counting to low carb to keep recording food for a period of time until they get efficient at controlling there eating pattern.
My point is that this is clearly not working for the OP so she needs to count calories. Low carb doesn't negate the need for a deficit.
Who is suggesting that low carb negates the need to eat in a deficit?
Tennis Dude no low carb book I've ever read mentions calorie counting! It's the big selling point!
You know that! We know that! It's what makes it so appealing! Freedom!
Low carb isn't for everyone, some people like the comfort of logging food. I'm not a low carb salesman and especially on this thread the OP clearly would like to stick with calorie counting (or I think that's what she wants to do, now that I've read through the other posts).
I'm curious why kuolo thinks that low carb is claiming to be a weight loss diet, without having to eat in a deficit?
Again, that's the whole selling point of low carb, the illusion that you can eat protein to your hearts content.
I've grown up amongst it! Nobody ever counted calories. It works for a bit while you get the water drop and eventually we all got sick go it and it didn't work anymore.
Are you still curious? The general public think it's a magic trick. Did you read Atkins? It's the great magic antidote to horrible restricting shackling calorie counting! Except it doesn't really work long term!0 -
The best approach is the one you can stick to and happily live with.
I rather suspect for most people that will be calorie counting based as it allows for flexibility and greater food choices. For some people though it maybe low carb which causes a spontaneous calorie deficit and that is cool too.
ETA: so whatever method you choose stick to it for a suitable amount of time (say 13 weeks) and then tweak as necessary if there is no movement in that time frame rather than the short term where scale readings will fluctuate (which is to be expected.)0 -
You need carbohydrates to effectively absorb water, so when you start a low-carb diet your body gets dehydrated and you appear to lose a lot of ~weight~ on the scale but really it's just a lack of water. if you want to actually lose fat, start as you mean to go on and just have a moderate calorie deficit.
Every cell in your body is 70% water. MMA fighters lose 15lbs in 1 week leading up to a fight by bathing in salt baths and eating low-carb so that they can be in a lower weight category without losing any fat or muscle, only water.
So I guess it depends, would you rather see a smaller number on a scale that is completely arbitrary and only you will see? All the while being extremely crabby from dehydration and not being able to eat the foods that you want. Or do you want to actually lose fat and make a difference to your body?0 -
There is not a best.
Weight Loss = Calorie Deficit
Low carb is more of a lifestyle choice (unless you have a medical condition).
Most people who do low carb are creating a calorie deficit without even realising it, they are not special *snowflakes*, they cannot eat over their TDEE on low carb and still lose weight.
Unless you want to eat low carb as a lifestyle choice for the rest of your life, my suggestion would be instead to eat in moderation from all food groups.
There are no "good" or "bad" foods, there is however the need to have portion control, to eat a variety of foods, and finally the will to eat at a deficit (fat can only be lost by burning it, and cannot be spot reduced).
Calories In vs Calories Out with a deficit will see you lose weight, if you aren't losing weight then you are not in a deficit.
Having a good nutritional balance and taking exercise will see you lose weight, lose less lean body mass, and have a better body composition.
Although of course there is the issue that if you have been a yo-yo dieter and eating low calories for a long time, your body may not be operating at peak efficiency, so you may want to eat at maintenance for a time, and then start again with the weight loss.
Just my thoughts, I'm not a doctor.
People are welcome to disagree with me, this is the internet after all
As a last note, reading the posts at the beginning, it read as if you are looking for a quick fix, there is no quick fix. You need to make the time to do these things, as it needs to be change of attitude that will take you forward for the rest of your life. :flowerforyou:
.0 -
I don't have time to read this whole thread but I just wanted to offer a couple if points. Weighing your food will seem like a big pain at first but it will get easier and you'll be so glad you did. I've been weighing my food to to the gram and it makes such a difference. In some cases you'll be pleasantly surprised. I recently found out that 50g of feta is a lot more than I thought, and so is 50g of avocado -- two of my favorites for salads!
I had been losing and gaining the same 2-4 lbs since December -- exasperating! Every morning I'd grit my teeth and get on the scale and just spend the rest of the day cranky and stressing about food and my weight. On April 1 my dietitian made me promise not to weigh myself for month. At first I thought she was nuts but it's been such a relief not to have to worry about it! I put all of my energy into planning and weighing my meals and I don't give a thought to my weight. My clothes are looser and I *think* I look better. I admit I'm looking forward to May 1 so I can get on the scale, but I'm definitely going to keep it down to once a month
Hang in there. Above all, DON'T GIVE UP!!!0 -
Because it's not a license to eat several thousand calories a day and still lose weight. You still need a deficit.
OP isn't losing because she's not in a deficit. Low carb or not is irrelevant to that.
Agreed, but a lot of people on low carb find eating in a deficit without logging food easier because of the reduced appetite.
It is certainly wise for someone switching from calorie counting to low carb to keep recording food for a period of time until they get efficient at controlling there eating pattern.
My point is that this is clearly not working for the OP so she needs to count calories. Low carb doesn't negate the need for a deficit.
Who is suggesting that low carb negates the need to eat in a deficit?
Tennis Dude no low carb book I've ever read mentions calorie counting! It's the big selling point!
You know that! We know that! It's what makes it so appealing! Freedom!
Low carb isn't for everyone, some people like the comfort of logging food. I'm not a low carb salesman and especially on this thread the OP clearly would like to stick with calorie counting (or I think that's what she wants to do, now that I've read through the other posts).
I'm curious why kuolo thinks that low carb is claiming to be a weight loss diet, without having to eat in a deficit?
Again, that's the whole selling point of low carb, the illusion that you can eat protein to your hearts content.
I've grown up amongst it! Nobody ever counted calories. It works for a bit while you get the water drop and eventually we all got sick go it and it didn't work anymore.
Are you still curious? The general public think it's a magic trick. Did you read Atkins? It's the great magic antidote to horrible restricting shackling calorie counting! Except it doesn't really work long term!
It's certainly not my illusion, plus I try to stick to moderate protein and not high (hard sometimes as I am a self confessed carnivore)!
Agreed that when Atkins first hit the scene (and other LCHF diets) that was the message that you could eat as much as you want and not gain weight.
However over the past couple of decades most (if not all) have changed their message and actively promote eating in a deficit for weigh loss!
I got into LCHF through the Primal Blue print and that is very much the message that is promoted via MDA.
I would suggest that both LCHF works long term and calorie counting works long term. I would also say neither work long term.
It is down to the individual doing the diet - for me calorie counting is unnecessary and totally unsustainable and definitely shackling. That said for the next guy it may be totally necessary and totally sustainable.
I personally do not promote LCHF to someone who doesn't want to do and I do not promote medium to high carb calorie counting to someone who is looking at doing low carb - unlike others on these forums.0 -
I would suggest that both LCHF works long term and calorie counting works long term. I would also say neither work long term.
It is down to the individual doing the diet - for me calorie counting is unnecessary and totally unsustainable and definitely shackling. That said for the next guy it may be totally necessary and totally sustainable.
You mean - there is no One True Way? Shocking suggestion.
Adherence to a way of eating which prompts a calorie deficit for a sufficient period of time will result in successful weight loss.
You know what is better than misery in securing adherence?
Happiness. Weird, I know.0 -
You mean - there is no One True Way? Shocking suggestion.
I would suggest that both LCHF works long term and calorie counting works long term. I would also say neither work long term.
It is down to the individual doing the diet - for me calorie counting is unnecessary and totally unsustainable and definitely shackling. That said for the next guy it may be totally necessary and totally sustainable.
Adherence to a way of eating which prompts a calorie deficit for a sufficient period of time will result in successful weight loss.
You know what is better than misery in securing adherence?
Happiness. Weird, I know.
It's a point I beat to death on occasion.
You'll be surprised by the numbers of people who don't believe it.
Sadly anyone doing something different from the majority is seen as - trying to be superior. lol
(Froggie wasn't better he was just different)0 -
I took the liberty of looking at the OP's salt, sugar and fibre intake over two weeks. Please do not be offended because I consider both your fat and salt intake is often way above your recommended levels. Salt encourages water retention. Higher than recommended fat consumption will give you more readily available fat to convert rather than take it from your reserves. All the time you are under your calorific allocation. Please try to bring down the daily salt and fat levels and I think you will see a real difference. I would prefer to see a higher fibre regime though this is possibly more of a personal choice but it helps me.
Also if you have lost 15 or so lb from January this looks like about I lb a week which is the recommended weekly loss many medics like to see.
If after all this there is no real difference then I would have my metabolism looked into. There are many different issues which cause weight gain and weight loss being more difficult.
All the best0 -
You'll be surprised by the numbers of people who don't believe it.
I suspect the biggest issue is that sometimes outlandish claims get made or hinted at such as you can eat more than your TDEE and still elicit fat loss with a certain way of eating or low carb is somehow superior when calories are being monitored (in a free living scenario the situation with obese / sedentary populations it may be slightly different.)
I think the clear and over riding message must be that all you really need to lose weight is a calorie deficit over time. How you choose to find yourself in that state (calorie counting / Paleo / Atkins whatever) is pretty much down to the individual and what suits their preferences and makes them happy.
That message will free many people.0 -
get a food scale.mission - I have lost 18 lbs so far, and I am happy with it, don't get me wrong. But 13 of those lbs happened in two weeks. The other 5 lbs have been spread out since January. So really, a little over a pound a month? I should be losing more than that.
trog - I have not been weighing my food, but I do measure it carefully. I already tend to come in between 100-500 calories below my goal, or I have for the last 6 weeks. well. I would say 3/4 of the time I am lower, the other 1/4 is at or slightly higher. So if I am to reduce by 100, I have still mostly been eating at that level. So should I go even lower?
weigh everything.
until you do that, you don't know how much you're eating and there's absolutely no way of knowing what else to tell you.
you say you're eating a certain amount, but the fact of it is.. you don't know how much you're eating on a regular basis and we're all just giving guess-work.
don't reduce anything at this point. pick a number. any number eat 1600 calories per day for 6 weeks. if you've gained at the end, look at the amount gained and tweak your intake from there.
ETA: and just flat out ignore these "coaches" that ask you to send them private messages on here. they're out to make a buck.
^ listen to this guy ….
also be warned that if you go back to eating regular level of carbs you will gain a few pounds of water weight, which is not fat but the scale will go up and then go back down …
Low calorie works for everyone…you are either not accurately measuring your calories or you are over estimating calorie burns...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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