Low Cal or Low Carb????
Options
Replies
-
I've lost weight with both, but I gained it all back and then some after a year of low carb. Been maintaining for 2 years now by watching calories instead of carbs.
My personal experience is that low carb dieting is great for weight loss but does not prepare you to handle maintenance. The constant allure of forbidden fruit (literally) pecks away at your resolve. How realistic is it that you will deprive yourself of 80% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant for the rest of your life? Nowadays, I count calories and eat whatever I want as long as it fits within my limits. And if I go over, I simply make it up over the next day or two. No "induction phase" stuff to deal with.
Having said all that, I must concede doing low carb taught me to emphasize those foods more in my diet. Low carb eating is more satisfying and less addicting. It's tragically easy to scarf down 500+ calories of chips, cereal or cookies. Try doing that with hard-boiled eggs!0 -
peter56765 wrote: »I've lost weight with both, but I gained it all back and then some after a year of low carb. Been maintaining for 2 years now by watching calories instead of carbs.
My personal experience is that low carb dieting is great for weight loss but does not prepare you to handle maintenance. The constant allure of forbidden fruit (literally) pecks away at your resolve. How realistic is it that you will deprive yourself of 80% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant for the rest of your life? Nowadays, I count calories and eat whatever I want as long as it fits within my limits. And if I go over, I simply make it up over the next day or two. No "induction phase" stuff to deal with.
Having said all that, I must concede doing low carb taught me to emphasize those foods more in my diet. Low carb eating is more satisfying and less addicting. It's tragically easy to scarf down 500+ calories of chips, cereal or cookies. Try doing that with hard-boiled eggs!
I am going on year 3 of maintenance after going low carb. I agree with Peter 56765= I still don't eat carbs like I did before. I emphasize protein and vegetables (fats follow along with protein easily). I have added back a banana or apple most days and carbs are in my two servings of greek yogurt I generally eat each day. Totally agree on the hard -boiled egg.. best snack ever as it kills your hunger pangs quick! I do agree with low carb and calorie logging...I am not sure what is meant by "low calorie" maybe I should say "calorie aware and accountable" vs low calorie. I found it is pretty easy to not eat all my calories on low carb, so I had to log calories to make sure I was getting enough calories.
0 -
-
meganjcallaghan wrote: »technically low carb is low calorie..if you cut out calorie dense foods and eat less of them then you are doing low calorie…
personally, I would just eat low calorie and stay within your carb macro …carbs are not the devil….
whaa? low carb isn't the same as low calorie. you could eat meats and fats all day er'day and quite quickly end up over your calorie goal.
Obviously you've never eaten low carb to see why its not as easy as you think eating above maintanance calories....
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Low carb is not low calorie. First of all 1 gram of fat represents 9 calories while 1 gram of carbohydrate represents 4 calories. So, replacing carbs with fat is not low calorie and you can easily overshoot your calorie goals while doing low-carb. Remember, you put on extra calories by eating in a surplus of what your body requires to function based on your activity level. If you're going to do low-carb, that's fine, but understand what your calorie requirements are for you to lose weight. Also, don't just shoot for 1200 like some sheep do because 1200 is likely far too low for most women. You want to lose weight on as many calories possible for successful long-term weight management.
Carbs aren't this horrible thing either, people can lose weight with carbohydrates.
No, no its not. WHY DO YOU THINK LOW CARB WORKS? Because you feel full, causing you to eat less and then stay under your calorie allowance. That's all it is OP. That is why I prefer low carb over low calorie.
0 -
Been there, done that. I could never stick with low carb, but whatever floats your boat. I prefer following TDEE/IIFYM principles. Feel satisfied, eat my carbs and lose weight too.0
-
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Low carb is not low calorie. First of all 1 gram of fat represents 9 calories while 1 gram of carbohydrate represents 4 calories. So, replacing carbs with fat is not low calorie and you can easily overshoot your calorie goals while doing low-carb. Remember, you put on extra calories by eating in a surplus of what your body requires to function based on your activity level. If you're going to do low-carb, that's fine, but understand what your calorie requirements are for you to lose weight. Also, don't just shoot for 1200 like some sheep do because 1200 is likely far too low for most women. You want to lose weight on as many calories possible for successful long-term weight management.
Carbs aren't this horrible thing either, people can lose weight with carbohydrates.
No, no its not. WHY DO YOU THINK LOW CARB WORKS? Because you feel full, causing you to eat less and then stay under your calorie allowance. That's all it is OP. That is why I prefer low carb over low calorie.
I can easily over eat on fat bombs, I love fried chicken skin, and heavy cream in all my soups was heavenly! The cals build fast!0 -
I find that minimizing refined carbs (most grains, breads, pasta, crackers…) means fewer cravings and more calorie room for protein. I have read that the refined carbs spike blood sugar making you feel more hungry etc. It is easier to maintain a calorie deficit without trying to find room for the white stuff. Plus it retrains your brain and palate to be happier with less sweet stuff. South beach phase one meals are great for diving into weight loss because they incorporate a lot of food choices and good carbs like beans and veg. There's no fruit during this phase but all food is eventually phased back in so you can eat what you choose in moderation. I have tried everything and this is what worked for me. I maintained a 40# weight loss for 8 years and got off track and now I'm back at it. Good luck!0
-
ThePhoenixIsRising wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Low carb is not low calorie. First of all 1 gram of fat represents 9 calories while 1 gram of carbohydrate represents 4 calories. So, replacing carbs with fat is not low calorie and you can easily overshoot your calorie goals while doing low-carb. Remember, you put on extra calories by eating in a surplus of what your body requires to function based on your activity level. If you're going to do low-carb, that's fine, but understand what your calorie requirements are for you to lose weight. Also, don't just shoot for 1200 like some sheep do because 1200 is likely far too low for most women. You want to lose weight on as many calories possible for successful long-term weight management.
Carbs aren't this horrible thing either, people can lose weight with carbohydrates.
No, no its not. WHY DO YOU THINK LOW CARB WORKS? Because you feel full, causing you to eat less and then stay under your calorie allowance. That's all it is OP. That is why I prefer low carb over low calorie.
I can easily over eat on fat bombs, I love fried chicken skin, and heavy cream in all my soups was heavenly! The cals build fast!
But that's no different than only eating so many candy bars from the bag or only so many chips or fries or peanut butter or whatever you eat on a low cal diet. Going over in calories isn't harder on a low cal diet than on a low carb diet. Being in ketosis for most people makes them less hungry.
I don't understand how the PP thinks that low carb ISN'T low calorie...its just how people get to low calorie. I don't know how the fact that fat has a different amount of calorie per gram than protein and protein really makes a difference. You don't sub 100g of carbs for 100g of fat.0 -
meganjcallaghan wrote: »technically low carb is low calorie..if you cut out calorie dense foods and eat less of them then you are doing low calorie…
personally, I would just eat low calorie and stay within your carb macro …carbs are not the devil….
whaa? low carb isn't the same as low calorie. you could eat meats and fats all day er'day and quite quickly end up over your calorie goal.
I personally couldn't or wouldn't want to do low carb and certainly don't think it's necessary to lose weight...but one of the reasons low carb does work is that a lot of calorie laden foods are eliminated from the diet. Yes, it's possible to make up for that with fat, etc...but most people don't...this is why so many people have great success with low carb diets without having to count calories.
Personally, I did calorie counting because it was ultimately a better teacher in RE to learning about what my body needs from an energy standpoint. Most people who low carb put weight back on in large part because they never really learn about energy needs and energy balance which are necessary for maintaining weight.
0 -
I personally found myself feeling very deprived and hungry on low carb (and sick of eating the same foods over and over). I find it easier to do low calorie.0
-
I've been doing low carb for 2 months now and I haven't seen any real benefits to it yet. For 2 weeks I did <20g of carbs and I was miserable. Not hungry, but horrible depression and confusion, irritability and just felt awful. Yeah, yeah, I know "keto flu, you'll get over it",,,, no, I didn't. It was awful and I can't live like that. So for the past month and a half, I have kept my carbs at between 50 and 100g a day which is the so-called "sweet spot" for weight loss. Well, it's not working for me. I've been eating at a substantial calorie deficit. I gave up sugar and soda, most processed foods, everything white, all junk foods and most fruits. I drink two liters of water a day. One cup of coffee a day. I measure, I track. At almost 300 lbs, you would think that changing to this kind of lifestyle would warrant a change, well it hasn't. I'm not convinced that "low-carb" is effective at all. I'm changing today, adding in more calories from healthy sources and also adding more complex carbs. You have to find what works for you. It's like an ongoing experiment to see what works for your body. Best of luck
0 -
ThePhoenixIsRising wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Low carb is not low calorie. First of all 1 gram of fat represents 9 calories while 1 gram of carbohydrate represents 4 calories. So, replacing carbs with fat is not low calorie and you can easily overshoot your calorie goals while doing low-carb. Remember, you put on extra calories by eating in a surplus of what your body requires to function based on your activity level. If you're going to do low-carb, that's fine, but understand what your calorie requirements are for you to lose weight. Also, don't just shoot for 1200 like some sheep do because 1200 is likely far too low for most women. You want to lose weight on as many calories possible for successful long-term weight management.
Carbs aren't this horrible thing either, people can lose weight with carbohydrates.
No, no its not. WHY DO YOU THINK LOW CARB WORKS? Because you feel full, causing you to eat less and then stay under your calorie allowance. That's all it is OP. That is why I prefer low carb over low calorie.
I can easily over eat on fat bombs, I love fried chicken skin, and heavy cream in all my soups was heavenly! The cals build fast!
Definitely. I've never really understood the people that go around eating fat bombs and drinking cream. I read a post the other day where a guy was drinking 8 oz of heavy cream per day and couldn't understand why he wasn't seeing weight loss.
If I only get a measly 2000 calories/day, I'm not going to drink them (unless it's alcoholic) or use them on many rich and unfilling foods. But everyone's a bit different when it comes to appetite.0 -
No, no its not. WHY DO YOU THINK LOW CARB WORKS? Because you feel full, causing you to eat less and then stay under your calorie allowance. That's all it is OP. That is why I prefer low carb over low calorie.
Honestly, low carb works for a couple reasons.
1. You have people that are use to eating like *kitten* and doing nothing, to following a plan with some good strucuture.
2. It forces people to cut out the crap like sugar sodas, candy, chips, ice cream, fast food, pizzas, <insert food type here>, etc, etc.
3. Some people don't handle carbs well and feel better on a low-carb diet, so they stick to it then.
4. People that understand basic nutrition use it to manipulate their diet to achieve certain body composition goals.
If you require eating 1500 calories, for example, for maintenance and if you consistently eat over that, even if the calories come strictly from Fat and Protein it doesn't matter. Surplus calories will result in weight loss, period. Not everybody feels satiated while on a low-carb diet.
Low-carb is a fine way to go if you can manage it properly; I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with it. It's just typically very difficult to do for an extended period of time.0 -
-
^ I agree with what he said. Also neither is managable long term. We need complex carbs to keep going and calories are there, every where it is about the quality of food you put in to your body not the CARB or CALORIE content.Even if you do low carb you will still be required to maintain a caloric deficit. I would START by figuring out a reasonable caloric intake, and from there you can make adjustments to macronutrients to suit your preferences/satiety.
0 -
chriscrosse wrote: »I find that minimizing refined carbs (most grains, breads, pasta, crackers…) means fewer cravings and more calorie room for protein. I have read that the refined carbs spike blood sugar making you feel more hungry etc. It is easier to maintain a calorie deficit without trying to find room for the white stuff. Plus it retrains your brain and palate to be happier with less sweet stuff. South beach phase one meals are great for diving into weight loss because they incorporate a lot of food choices and good carbs like beans and veg. There's no fruit during this phase but all food is eventually phased back in so you can eat what you choose in moderation. I have tried everything and this is what worked for me. I maintained a 40# weight loss for 8 years and got off track and now I'm back at it. Good luck!
i eat all the carbs and have zero issues with weight loss..so I am going with a no on this one...0 -
I've done low carb in the past and had great success with it until i kept regaining the weight back after going back to normal eating...the last time i tried low carb i didn't lose a pound... I've been on MFP for almost 2 months and I'm just limiting everything I eat, Calories, Fat, Carbs, Sugar, sodium & Protein and I'm down just about 17lbs now...Everyone is different ..for me balance is key, not one or the other 0
-
The only way humans would have been able to drastically decrease carb consumption is to drastically increase their meat consumption, which would require a few things:
1) Teeth capable of decently chewing meat
2) Digestive tracts capable of processing meat
3) Tools to enable a reliable consumption of meat
(among others)
Firstly, know that hominids to have evolved up to 2.4 million years ago, with anatomically modern humans estimated to have evolved up to 200,000 years ago, but we can reasonably go back 4 million years, and up to 7 million if you really want to stretch (that point is less reasonable for our purposes, however).
Onward...
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/pungar/satalk.htm
http://www.manticmoo.com/articles/jeff/scholarly/an-evolving-human-dentition.php
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/research/directory/teeth_hillson
(Humans would not have been able to reliably chew meat until relatively recently.)
http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/meateating.pdf (ignore the hypothesis; the discussion of the gut is the focus here)
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/23/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/
(Human guts did not evolve to adequately process meat until relatively recently.)
I have to go now, so I can't give you papers about tools, but you can look this stuff up yourself. The main point is that meat-eating does not appear to have been absolutely common until around 200,000 years ago.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions