what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet?
Replies
-
Yup. And I move a ton. I average 12,000 steps a day (running, walking, cycling), and lift weights, and do Pilates... And with that I burn about 2,000.
Exactly right. I'm pushing 50, and at a healthy weight and my maintenance calories are closer to 2,000. And my sweet spot for losing is around 1500.That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day
You're young and you weigh more than 200 pounds.
Someone older or closer to a healthy weight (or both) would not lose on 3,000 calories a day, no matter what that person ate. You are eating fewer calories than you're burning and that is why you're having success.
Lucky you. I have a couple of years before I hit 50 and my sweet spot for losing weight is 1350. Maintenance is somewhere around 1600-1700. Sucks to have a sluggish metabolism.
I hear you! I run three times a week and do strength training 2-3 days a week and on those days I do 30 minutes on the ARC trainer averaging 140 steps a minute. I also average 12,000 steps a day. Middle-age metabolism is a pain.
Oh, and to stay on topic, I did a low carb diet about 10 years ago. I thought I would die! I had headaches from hell and could hardly walk across the room because I was so tired. On top of that, when I got hungry on low carb, I was murderously hungry. Do NOT get between me and my food!0 -
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...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?0
-
When one does exercise regularly/daily, eats right, post their daily food meals,,,and after 7 days of all this,,2 lbs comes off. Whats up with that??0
-
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...0 -
Um ... success? Do you think this is a bad thing?When one does exercise regularly/daily, eats right, post their daily food meals,,,and after 7 days of all this,,2 lbs comes off. Whats up with that??0 -
:yawn: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?0
-
i have inspected the above post and found that not a word of it contains any factual information. please disregard any and all advice given in that post
I disagree. I have read scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners can stimulate insulin production. The body "reads" them as sugars, even though they are not, and are calorie free.
It is a scientific fact that elevated insulin causes the body to store as fat the foods we are taking in. Any doctor, dietician medical book or even Wikipedia will confirm this.
Therefore, if you drink, say, a Diet Coke with your meal, and the sweeteners are read by the body as sugar, and the pancreas releases a gush of insulin to deal with the (perceived) sugar, then whatever you are eating is going to be stored as fat on your body.
On low carb diets this is especially bad, because you are eating fatty, high-calorie foods and so THAT is what you will store if your body produces insulin. The consequences are not as bad on low calorie diets because your meal is probably only 300 calories instead of 1,000 as it might be on Atkins.
let's look at it your way.
so let's say that i maintain on 3000 calories per day, and i'm cutting on say....2500 per day. i consume some artificial sweetners and now my body produces insulin and stores a portion of my calories into fat storage. okay, now, i *still* need 3000 cals to maintain my weight and I'm 500 short by the end of the day.
we agree that i'm still in a deficit, yes? so where does my body get those 500 calories from in order to not lose weight that's been created by my deficit?
Here's the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine with reference to artificial sweeteners and weight gain:
" Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain. The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven- to eight-year period in the 1980s [18]. When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption. Average BMI gain was +1.01 kg/m2 for control and 1.78 kg/m2 for people in the third quartile for artificially sweetened beverage consumption. The American Cancer Society study conducted in early 1980s included 78,694 women who were highly homogenous with regard to age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and lack of preexisting conditions [19]. At one-year follow-up, 2.7 percent to 7.1 percent more regular artificial sweetener users gained weight compared to non-users matched by initial weight. The difference in the amount gained between the two groups was less than two pounds, albeit statistically significant. Saccharin use was also associated with eight-year weight gain in 31,940 women from the Nurses’ Health Study conducted in the 1970s [20]."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
That doesn't say artificial sweetener cause the weight gain
correlation =/= causation
:noway:
I read the article and the conclusions by Yale University professors in a peer reviewed journal. They most definitely did establish that artificial sweeteners cause more weight gain than weight loss over time.
:
Please take the time to actually read the study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
That is a single author mini-review - not research. But ok, lets go with it.
The article the author cites as a possible forward correlation states:
"The addition of NNS to diets poses no benefit for weight loss or reduced weight gain without energy restriction. There are long-standing and recent concerns that inclusion of NNS in the diet promotes energy intake and contributes to obesity. Most of the purported mechanisms by which this occurs are not supported by the available evidence, although some warrant further consideration. Resolution of this important issue will require long-term randomized controlled trials."
In other words - energy restriction results in weight loss - there are no current supported mechanisms from scientific evidence for weight gain via NNS but maybe more research might shed a light. Also known as "we don't know if".
So no, your statement is just not true. They most definitely DO NOT establish a clear cause of weight gain directly from the use of artificial sweeteners - they do note specifically calories matter, specifically calorie restriction.
Try again.0 -
I tried it for a week a couple of years ago just to see how it would feel vis a vis these threads. I felt great. But it's not how I normally eat. I tend to eat pretty SLOW carb (not Tim Ferriss).
Yup. And I move a ton. I average 12,000 steps a day (running, walking, cycling), and lift weights, and do Pilates... And with that I burn about 2,000.
Exactly right. I'm pushing 50, and at a healthy weight and my maintenance calories are closer to 2,000. And my sweet spot for losing is around 1500.That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day
You're young and you weigh more than 200 pounds.
Someone older or closer to a healthy weight (or both) would not lose on 3,000 calories a day, no matter what that person ate. You are eating fewer calories than you're burning and that is why you're having success.
Lucky you. I have a couple of years before I hit 50 and my sweet spot for losing weight is 1350. Maintenance is somewhere around 1600-1700. Sucks to have a sluggish metabolism.
I hear you! I run three times a week and do strength training 2-3 days a week and on those days I do 30 minutes on the ARC trainer averaging 140 steps a minute. I also average 12,000 steps a day. Middle-age metabolism is a pain.
Oh, and to stay on topic, I did a low carb diet about 10 years ago. I thought I would die! I had headaches from hell and could hardly walk across the room because I was so tired. On top of that, when I got hungry on low carb, I was murderously hungry. Do NOT get between me and my food!0 -
:yawn: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?
It must stink to keep tripping up on your own logical fallacies...0 -
Eliminate artificial sweeteners and focus on lean meats and veggies and unprocessed foods at meals. You know those foods that say they are low carb and low calorie but still have 20 ingredients you cant identify? Yea those are the ones that hold you back. When I felt myself plateau on low carb diets it was a result of eating too many processed foods with artificial sweeteners a going off the deep end with foods that were unhealthy.
Drink lots of water, eat clean and you'll bust through that plateau.
Also track your body measurements. Low carb diets build muscle to replace the fat and sometimes the loss shows on the measurements before you see a drop on the scales.
I use artificial sweetners like there's no tomorrow and am all about the carbs. They're delicious. I also make frequent use of processed foods. As you can see by my ticker, these things really have nothing to do with weight loss. You simply need to create a caloric deficit.0 -
Start weighing your food accurately. and eat some cookies that you've logged. and no I didn't read any responses.0
-
OP - I find it helpful to focus on one thing at a time, until I get the hang of it, then gradually add more information. What I mean is that you are over-complicating this process. The ONLY way to lose weight is to eat at a caloric deficit. Focus on this first, disregard any special diets or eliminating anything for the time being.
It is more important to log everything and make sure your daily calories don't go into the red. Then you will lose weight. Once you've got the hang of that, then you can start trying to understand more information such as macros, specific diets like low carb, or whatever way you decide to go about it.
At its core, MFP is a calorie counter. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.0 -
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 -
(waving hi). I just joined too. I wanted to track it all. Have had more than my share of diet "adventures" and found that I've encountered more hurdles as I age (health issues/injuries/stress) so I set out to find exactly what is going to work for me - for always. A low carb way of eating is essential for me (not necessarily Atkins-just low carb in general) but the kind of tweaking I'm getting from a diabetic plan is even better - keeps everything balanced all day every day. Just google a low glycemic index and take note of the lowest glycemic foods. you can still stick to the low carbs but you'll be getting healthier ones. Easy peazy. I'll post the lowest glycemic ones for you...brb...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. These foods are low on the glycemic index. I don't have diabetes but my sister did (as a child) and the entire family followed the diet plan to support her. She no longer has diabetes, nor does anyone else in our family. I'm the only one with the weight issues that surface here and there. Anyhoo...glycemic index foods..lower the better on the glycemic scale.
Beef,Bacon,Fish,Calamari,Seafood,Ham,Lamb,Lobster,Turkey - *free* to eat
Avocados _ very low
100% fruit jam, long grain rice only, fettucine,linguine,sushi-Low
most veggies,apples, and peas are low
PUmpernickel bread is low but white bread is high.
All Bran cereal and steel cut oats are low but Bran Flakes and instant oatmeal is High.
As you can see, eating the unprocessed "real" foods are ideal.
Combine with an exercise plan you enjoy and voila.
Pickleball anyone???0 -
I went through the not losing weight on a low carb diet thing. Initially at one point I did lose 30 pounds on Atkins from 297 to 267 but then gained it back because it wasn't sustainable long term. I tried low carb again once I had gained back to my starting point but was only able to get back to 287. One thing I found in low carb groups was they would tell you to try everything else except watch your calories. I got told to do a meat and egg fast. Lost a few pounds pretty quickly but I was craving vegetables badly and gained back what little I lost after having a salad. Was told to avoid "nightshade vegetables" like bell peppers. No change. Was told to give up artificial sweetener like in diet coke. No change. Told to have less vegetables and more meat. I just wanted a salad. Constantly told I needed to cut my carbs to less than 20 g a day. People are not meant to not eat vegetables. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors were eating what they could pick off bushes not just the meat they hunted.
I read "The Primal Blueprint". While by no means do I strictly follow primal, it made more sense then a lot of low carb books. The carb goal that the author suggests is a far more reasonable 50-100 g of carbs a day. I initially set that as my goal along with a calorie goal. Right now I typically eat 75-125 g of carbs a day and under 1400 calories. I've been steadily losing weight and have gone from 287 in June to 263 today. Slow but steady and I eat most foods in moderation.
I do believe that most people could probably benefit from lower carbs but on a more moderate carb approach along with watching calories. The few people who are able to lose large amounts of weight just cutting carbs and not watching calories are luckier than most of us. Most of us have to watch calories even while watching carbs.0 -
I read "The Primal Blueprint". While by no means do I strictly follow primal, it made more sense then a lot of low carb books. The carb goal that the author suggests is a far more reasonable 50-100 g of carbs a day. I initially set that as my goal along with a calorie goal. Right now I typically eat 75-125 g of carbs a day and under 1400 calories. I've been steadily losing weight and have gone from 287 in June to 263 today. Slow but steady and I eat most foods in moderation.
I do believe that most people could probably benefit from lower carbs but on a more moderate carb approach along with watching calories. The few people who are able to lose large amounts of weight just cutting carbs and not watching calories are luckier than most of us. Most of us have to watch calories even while watching carbs.
Not all low-carb diets are as low as mine (20-30g/day). They all vary. But your 50g-100g range and 1400 sounds a lot what my maintenance is going to look like.
Good for you for finding out what works for you. That's how you are supposed to do it.
Those lucky people (who don't have to calorie-count) stink, but I'm happy for them. :laugh:0 -
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?
OP is eating low carb and has no idea how many calories they are consuming and is shocked, SHOCKED that they aren't losing weight. letting the OP know that low carb isn't magic and doesn't work unless they are still in a calorie deficit would seem to be exactly the type of answer the OP needs, no?
^^^ Exactly this ^^^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?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions