Not losing weight on low carb?
Options
Replies
-
AllOutof_Bubblegum wrote: »LAWL @ a nutritionist being a "medical expert". You do know there are no legal requirements you need to call yourself a nutritionist, right? None. Zero. So this "professional" may very well have exactly zero idea of what he's talking about. And based off what he's telling you, I'm gonna have to go with "Ignorant Fool Blowing Smoke for $200" please. You are being grossly mislead by this idiot. Please see a registered dietitian. That is the only title truly qualified to give in-depth diet and weight loss advice. Everyone else is 9/10 going to tell you some pretty ridiculous, non-science-based crap.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who caught that....
0 -
Yikes tameko, definitely not 2000 calories. I did lose weight my first 2 weeks. It's just the last week of doing this has stalled me.
MelRc- this phase I am on is to help my cravings and hunger. I tried Weight Watchers 3 times and lost around 20 lbs. each time, but I was hungry ALL THE TIME. I thought about food ALL the time. It was because I was eating so many wrong foods. Processed foods that were high in carbs.
The phase I am on, advised by the expert, is not a permanent phase. It's to help get me into ketosis, which I am at. Phase two will start after today.
I haven't had a soda in 3 weeks. I tried so many times to cut out soda, but I couldn't. I had it while on WW, but just added it to my points. This nutritionist told me to get through the first 3 days. To just give it a chance. She said I would start to have less cravings, less thoughts about food. She was right. I used to nap every single afternoon when my toddler napped. Now, I have energy and am getting stuff done in my house. Again, I feel great! Now I just have to continue with the weight loss.
Sooo....wait. You think you only ate ~1250 calories *total* yesterday? And 63%of that was fat?
Assuming you gave us yesterday as an example typical day .... I can guarantee you are eating a LOT more than you think you are.
Guarantee it. Low carb *may* be what's helping you feel less hungry.....but it may also be that you're eating maintenance calories.0 -
So bombsell, you honestly eat poptarts for breakfast and chips for lunch and you don't get fat? Really...how does one do that? Even when not dieting, I don't eat like that. Unless you work out all day?
I'll do you one better. Not pop-tarts for breakfast and chips for lunch, but 2 sodas and lots of candy every day. Check my diary for proof, it's open. And I've been steadily losing weight to the tune of about 2 lbs/week. Slamming people and their diets when you have no idea what success they're having with them is never a smart idea. It just makes you look foolish.
I'm glad that you think you have the magic diet, but you clearly have no idea that there are other options which can work equally as well if not better. If you thought you already had all the answers, then why did you bother to post a question? You've rejected out of hand every possible suggestion which didn't say "you're doing fine." And you may be. But your out-of-hand rejection, without the consideration that they may have a point, tells me that you came here for affirmation, not information.-1 -
OP - my diary is open...FYI I am bulking right now...but I regularly eat bacon, bagels, pasta, ice cream, cookies, etc, and when I am cutting I have no issues losing weight...0
-
I feel like I'm overly chiming in on this thread, but from the OP on the last page:I haven't weighed my food but I will start doing it, thanks.
She likes how she's feeling on her diet. It's helping with satiety and "cravings." She realizes there's an accuracy issue. And she's taking steps to address that going forward. So given that, how do you conclude:You've rejected out of hand every possible suggestion which didn't say "you're doing fine." And you may be. But your out-of-hand rejection, without the consideration that they may have a point, tells me that you came here for affirmation, not information.
She may have rejected some posts that erroneously claimed more than 30g of carbs are necessary because someone likes fruit or people laughing at her for consulting a nutritionist (sorry, but when you're a random unqualified guy on the Internet, it's not very persuasive when you try and impeach a nutritionist's credentials) - but she did not simply dismiss every attempt to help her. Perhaps she's gotten a bit defensive, but given some of the comments, I'm not sure you can really blame her.0 -
The idea behind the low-carb diet is that decreasing carbs lower insulin levels, which causes the body to burn stored fat for energy and ultimately leads to weight loss.
If you are eating fewer calories than you are burning, your body will burn stored fat (and/or protein) for energy.
Low-carbs/High-carbs/Medium-carbs has absolutely nothing to do with basic human biology. Just think about it logically: if you don't give your body enough fuel, it's not going to do without. It IS going to get it from somewhere else. And that somewhere else is either muscle mass (if your diet is protein-deficient) or stored fat. Those are the only two possibilities.
If this is the nonsense your "nutritionist" is feeding you, then you should ask for your money back. Period.0 -
I feel like I'm overly chiming in on this thread, but from the OP on the last page:I haven't weighed my food but I will start doing it, thanks.
She likes how she's feeling on her diet. It's helping with satiety and "cravings." She realizes there's an accuracy issue. And she's taking steps to address that going forward. So given that, how do you conclude:You've rejected out of hand every possible suggestion which didn't say "you're doing fine." And you may be. But your out-of-hand rejection, without the consideration that they may have a point, tells me that you came here for affirmation, not information.
She may have rejected some posts that erroneously claimed more than 30g of carbs are necessary because someone likes fruit or people laughing at her for consulting a nutritionist (sorry, but when you're a random unqualified guy on the Internet, it's not very persuasive when you try and impeach a nutritionist's credentials) - but she did not simply dismiss every attempt to help her. Perhaps she's gotten a bit defensive, but given some of the comments, I'm not sure you can really blame her.
Devil's advocate...
How would you know the individuals aren't qualified? Just because many don't put their signature on their response?
In all honesty, through reading these forums for years now, I'm more apt to follow advice from the forums than I would a nutritionist....just typ'n though.0 -
She may have rejected some posts that erroneously claimed more than 30g of carbs are necessary because someone likes fruit or people laughing at her for consulting a nutritionist (sorry, but when you're a random unqualified guy on the Internet, it's not very persuasive when you try and impeach a nutritionist's credentials) - but she did not simply dismiss every attempt to help her. Perhaps she's gotten a bit defensive, but given some of the comments, I'm not sure you can really blame her.
She rejected anyone who said that low-carbs aren't necessary to lose weight. That's a proven falsehood.
She claims to have gotten this information from her nutritionist. If that's the sort of stuff that her nutritionist is telling her, then s/he's less qualified than your average forum participant to be speaking on the subject let alone collecting money for doing so.
Perhaps if OP had been open to actual suggestions rather than rejecting anyone who didn't buy into all the same nonsense that she has then she wouldn't have felt the need to be so defensive.0 -
Well, I think most of us here are unqualified. There are some trainers that frequent the forums, but I don't know a lot of registered dieticians, physiologists and the like that go around giving forum advice on a regular basis. And at the end of the day, even if you are fully qualified and your advice is spot on, it still comes down to perception and Internet guy vs. nutritionist. When we have a guy on the forums using someone else's picture and telling people not to eat breakfast... I'm not sure how much credibility I'd give anyone, haha.
But personally I listen to a lot of forum advice as well. The trick is to be able to do your own research to verify things for yourself, so that you can sort out the breakfast guys from the folks giving good advice.0 -
Well, I think most of us here are unqualified. There are some trainers that frequent the forums, but I don't know a lot of registered dieticians, physiologists and the like that go around giving forum advice on a regular basis. And at the end of the day, even if you are fully qualified and your advice is spot on, it still comes down to perception and Internet guy vs. nutritionist. When we have a guy on the forums using someone else's picture and telling people not to eat breakfast... I'm not sure how much credibility I'd give anyone, haha.
But personally I listen to a lot of forum advice as well. The trick is to be able to do your own research to verify things for yourself, so that you can sort out the breakfast guys from the folks giving good advice.
Totally my point, and why I wouldn't discredit the forums vs. a nutritionist......remember, we're talking about a nutritionist....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3TnLhhCbx5U
0 -
Jim_Barteck wrote: »So bombsell, you honestly eat poptarts for breakfast and chips for lunch and you don't get fat? Really...how does one do that? Even when not dieting, I don't eat like that. Unless you work out all day?
I'll do you one better. Not pop-tarts for breakfast and chips for lunch, but 2 sodas and lots of candy every day. Check my diary for proof, it's open. And I've been steadily losing weight to the tune of about 2 lbs/week. Slamming people and their diets when you have no idea what success they're having with them is never a smart idea. It just makes you look foolish.
I'm glad that you think you have the magic diet, but you clearly have no idea that there are other options which can work equally as well if not better. If you thought you already had all the answers, then why did you bother to post a question? You've rejected out of hand every possible suggestion which didn't say "you're doing fine." And you may be. But your out-of-hand rejection, without the consideration that they may have a point, tells me that you came here for affirmation, not information.
You are grossly assuming a lot of things about me, huh? I lost 7 lbs. so far, but I haven't lost any in the past week. I am less hungry, I haven't had a soda or sweet in 3 weeks. I feel full when I eat. I feel amazing. The past week has thrown me for a curve. I agreed the weighing my food could be a culprit. I am not complaining about the plan, I was perplexed. There are people on all of these boards who come on here to start a fight and to be a bully. You know where to go!-1 -
-
Calorie deficit is inseparable from loss of body mass (be it fat or otherwise). I do not believe that anybody is arguing against that.
The traditional approach to fat loss involves overpowering the system of hormones we posess to control our hunger, using mind-over-body/habit/grit, in order to push calorie expenditure up with exercise, whilst keeping total intake lower to try to 'force' your body to burn the mass you don't want.
This approach has highly variable success rate, mainly because it involves going head to head with hormones. Staying a healthy weight has, in the eyes of many, become a matter of biology-overpowering self control. Right.... This strategy has failure built into it.
An analogy:
One can say awake for longer if they just sleep less. Once can also force themselves to sleep less. This means that someone with a chronic energy disorder such as ME needs to 'just wake up and sleep less', right? I can force myself to stay awake and so can you. Did I just cure ME?
This thinking is all F'd up. We need to tackle the cause, not the effect. It's so freaking easy to slap 'personal responsibility' on the problem and laugh at the fat people for being so lazy and greedy.
Far easier than actually doing some science and figuring out why an overweight person's body is comfortable at an unhelpful weight. As much as we might like to think we're beyond instinct, satiety and available energy are very real factors which control our behaviour. Willpower is finite and our strategy shouldn't rely on it being infinite.
Low carb diets work because for many people, sugar pushes the body's hormonal set-point/comfort zone upward in the heavier direction.
A nice example:
Lets say a pound of fat is 3500kcals. Now let's say we have a 6 year old child who is 50lbs overweight. That is one big kid. What a greedy *kitten*, amirite? He must have been packing so many cookies away on a daily basis to get that big, eh... Wrong:
(50 * 3500kcals) / 6 years = a daily overeat/under-exercise of approximately 80 kcals.
80...kcals. 80 pathetic kcals. How irresponsible of him.
Calorie balance has a 1:1 relationship with weight change. It is not a cause, so much as it is simply part of the same thing.
A hormonal feedback loop is what actually controls this system via behaviour (we see this as satiety and how 'energetic' we feel), and sugar adjusts this feedback loop.
Sure, if you've got the right mental and physical makeup, you can force yourself to eat less and 'shock' your body into a burning its calories, perhaps even without your metabolic rate coming down too much, but it's far more pleasant, sustainable and realistic to work WITH your biochemistry here than against it.
TL;DR: Taking sugar out of the equation makes our bodies regulate their energy balance(and therefore weight) properly with relatively little conscious effort required, just as it should be.
Oh, and don't worry about your weight. Weight can be made of a bunch of different things and, let's be honest, who apart from fighters trying to fit into a particular weight class actually cares how HEAVY they are (?). Take the right measurements - ones which reflect your goals. If you want to be smaller, get a tape measure. If you want to be less jiggly, get a...erm..jiggle-o-meter....or something? Anyway, y'know what I'm saying.
And remember there are far more important things than weight when it comes to health. A favourable blood lipid profile (esp triglycerides and HDL) for a start. Happy joints, plenty of functional strength to support your daily activities, a low rate of inflammation (cardiovascular disease is primarily an inflammatory condition).
You can have a crap-ton of things wrong with you and be skinny; people shouldn't be getting cocky on the basis of their leanness - 'health' is a truly massive picture that it's hard to fully appreciate.
Also a pound of fat per week is plenty. regardless of what various magazines might say.
And well done, you're doing great! 0 -
why is it when an OP quotes a nutritionist that is making claims that are not fact or science based, and then people respond with the correct information they are labeled "bullies"..oh wait this is MFP, that is why ...0
-
why is it when an OP quotes a nutritionist that is making claims that are not fact or science based, and then people respond with the correct information they are labeled "bullies"..oh wait this is MFP, that is why ...
Ummm, because my actual quote was from the mayo clinic. But it's what my nutritionist also told me. I'll stick to the tone of bullying.0 -
Jim_Barteck wrote: »She may have rejected some posts that erroneously claimed more than 30g of carbs are necessary because someone likes fruit or people laughing at her for consulting a nutritionist (sorry, but when you're a random unqualified guy on the Internet, it's not very persuasive when you try and impeach a nutritionist's credentials) - but she did not simply dismiss every attempt to help her. Perhaps she's gotten a bit defensive, but given some of the comments, I'm not sure you can really blame her.
She rejected anyone who said that low-carbs aren't necessary to lose weight. That's a proven falsehood.
She claims to have gotten this information from her nutritionist. If that's the sort of stuff that her nutritionist is telling her, then s/he's less qualified than your average forum participant to be speaking on the subject let alone collecting money for doing so.
Perhaps if OP had been open to actual suggestions rather than rejecting anyone who didn't buy into all the same nonsense that she has then she wouldn't have felt the need to be so defensive.
Let's say I'm happily making progress on Wendler's 5/3/1 routine and I ask a question about deloading. Someone pops into the thread saying YOU SHOULD DO THE RUSSIAN SQUAT ROUTINE BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR ME AND MY SQUAT SO STRONK! Then another person pops in saying YOU'VE GOT TO DO HEAVY CHEAT CURLS BECAUSE IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE FOR MY BICEPS. If I dismiss this advice out of turn because it's not what I asked about, am I now rejecting all attempts to help me and looking only for affirmation? These people may be correct and certainly Jim Wendler's program isn't necessary to make gains - but the problem is it's not what I'm asking about. And to the extent I like everything else about this program, why would I want to make a radical shift in my entire routine just because I had one specific question?
Read the thread. The OP seems to like how she feels on her diet. She feels it's helping with controlling her appetite. And she's lost what, 5-6 pounds over the past 3 weeks (certainly some of which is water weight). So why would she want to completely change her routine? Why should she care if what's she doing is necessary to lose weight? Not much when it comes to nutrition is "necessary." She's asking about making better progress (which, having lost 5-6 pounds over 3 weeks, she may not even need to do), not how to completely change her routine and not how to make her routine look more like your routine.
The best advice she could get (track calories in addition to carbs and use a food scale) was already given and she's agreed to follow it. So why do people feel compelled to tell her to make a dramatic shift in her program? I don't get it.0 -
bizarrefish wrote: »Calorie deficit is inseparable from loss of body mass (be it fat or otherwise). I do not believe that anybody is arguing against that.
The traditional approach to fat loss involves overpowering the system of hormones we posess to control our hunger, using mind-over-body/habit/grit, in order to push calorie expenditure up with exercise, whilst keeping total intake lower to try to 'force' your body to burn the mass you don't want.
This approach has highly variable success rate, mainly because it involves going head to head with hormones. Staying a healthy weight has, in the eyes of many, become a matter of biology-overpowering self control. Right.... This strategy has failure built into it.
An analogy:
One can say awake for longer if they just sleep less. Once can also force themselves to sleep less. This means that someone with a chronic energy disorder such as ME needs to 'just wake up and sleep less', right? I can force myself to stay awake and so can you. Did I just cure ME?
This thinking is all F'd up. We need to tackle the cause, not the effect. It's so freaking easy to slap 'personal responsibility' on the problem and laugh at the fat people for being so lazy and greedy.
Far easier than actually doing some science and figuring out why an overweight person's body is comfortable at an unhelpful weight. As much as we might like to think we're beyond instinct, satiety and available energy are very real factors which control our behaviour. Willpower is finite and our strategy shouldn't rely on it being infinite.
Low carb diets work because for many people, sugar pushes the body's hormonal set-point/comfort zone upward in the heavier direction.
A nice example:
Lets say a pound of fat is 3500kcals. Now let's say we have a 6 year old child who is 50lbs overweight. That is one big kid. What a greedy *kitten*, amirite? He must have been packing so many cookies away on a daily basis to get that big, eh... Wrong:
(50 * 3500kcals) / 6 years = a daily overeat/under-exercise of approximately 80 kcals.
80...kcals. 80 pathetic kcals. How irresponsible of him.
Calorie balance has a 1:1 relationship with weight change. It is not a cause, so much as it is simply part of the same thing.
A hormonal feedback loop is what actually controls this system via behaviour (we see this as satiety and how 'energetic' we feel), and sugar adjusts this feedback loop.
Sure, if you've got the right mental and physical makeup, you can force yourself eat less and 'shock' your body into a burning its calories, perhaps even without your metabolic rate coming down too much, but it's far more pleasant, sustainable and realistic to work WITH your biochemistry here than against it.
TL;DR: Taking sugar out of the equation makes our bodies regulate their energy balance(and therefore weight) properly with relatively little conscious effort required, just as it should be.
Oh, and don't worry about your weight. Weight can be made of a bunch of different things and, let's be honest, who apart from fighters trying to fit into a particular weight class actually cares how HEAVY they are (?). Take the right measurements - ones which reflect your goals. If you want to be smaller, get a tape measure. If you want to be less jiggly, get a...erm..jiggle-o-meter? Y'know what I'm saying.
Also a pound of fat per week is plenty. regardless of what various magazines might say.
And well done, you're doing great!
Wow, a really helpful and thought out response, rather than an attack. Thank you!0 -
Jim_Barteck wrote: »She may have rejected some posts that erroneously claimed more than 30g of carbs are necessary because someone likes fruit or people laughing at her for consulting a nutritionist (sorry, but when you're a random unqualified guy on the Internet, it's not very persuasive when you try and impeach a nutritionist's credentials) - but she did not simply dismiss every attempt to help her. Perhaps she's gotten a bit defensive, but given some of the comments, I'm not sure you can really blame her.
She rejected anyone who said that low-carbs aren't necessary to lose weight. That's a proven falsehood.
She claims to have gotten this information from her nutritionist. If that's the sort of stuff that her nutritionist is telling her, then s/he's less qualified than your average forum participant to be speaking on the subject let alone collecting money for doing so.
Perhaps if OP had been open to actual suggestions rather than rejecting anyone who didn't buy into all the same nonsense that she has then she wouldn't have felt the need to be so defensive.
Let's say I'm happily making progress on Wendler's 5/3/1 routine and I ask a question about deloading. Someone pops into the thread saying YOU SHOULD DO THE RUSSIAN SQUAT ROUTINE BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR ME AND MY SQUAT SO STRONK! Then another person pops in saying YOU'VE GOT TO DO HEAVY CHEAT CURLS BECAUSE IT'S SUPER EFFECTIVE FOR MY BICEPS. If I dismiss this advice out of turn because it's not what I asked about, am I now rejecting all attempts to help me and looking only for affirmation? These people may be correct and certainly Jim Wendler's program isn't necessary to make gains - but the problem is it's not what I'm asking about. And to the extent I like everything else about this program, why would I want to make a radical shift in my entire routine just because I had one specific question?
Read the thread. The OP seems to like how she feels on her diet. She feels it's helping with controlling her appetite. And she's lost what, 5-6 pounds over the past 3 weeks (certainly some of which is water weight). So why would she want to completely change her routine? Why should she care if what's she doing is necessary to lose weight? Not much when it comes to nutrition is "necessary." She's asking about making better progress (which, having lost 5-6 pounds over 3 weeks, she may not even need to do), not how to completely change her routine and not how to make her routine look more like your routine.
The best advice she could get (track calories in addition to carbs and use a food scale) was already given and she's agreed to follow it. So why do people feel compelled to tell her to make a dramatic shift in her program? I don't get it.
besides the blatant misinformation that was shared about what a "nutritionist" said, I could really care less what OP does...
I do however take issue with someone saying that low carb burns fat or kick starts metabolism, which is blatantly false...0 -
Also I know this is gross, but it's common to get less frequent bowel movement when you're on low carb due to a possible low fibre intake, so you could just be backed up ^.
0 -
bizarrefish wrote: »Calorie deficit is inseparable from loss of body mass (be it fat or otherwise). I do not believe that anybody is arguing against that.
The traditional approach to fat loss involves overpowering the system of hormones we posess to control our hunger, using mind-over-body/habit/grit, in order to push calorie expenditure up with exercise, whilst keeping total intake lower to try to 'force' your body to burn the mass you don't want.
This approach has highly variable success rate, mainly because it involves going head to head with hormones. Staying a healthy weight has, in the eyes of many, become a matter of biology-overpowering self control. Right.... This strategy has failure built into it.
An analogy:
One can say awake for longer if they just sleep less. Once can also force themselves to sleep less. This means that someone with a chronic energy disorder such as ME needs to 'just wake up and sleep less', right? I can force myself to stay awake and so can you. Did I just cure ME?
This thinking is all F'd up. We need to tackle the cause, not the effect. It's so freaking easy to slap 'personal responsibility' on the problem and laugh at the fat people for being so lazy and greedy.
Far easier than actually doing some science and figuring out why an overweight person's body is comfortable at an unhelpful weight. As much as we might like to think we're beyond instinct, satiety and available energy are very real factors which control our behaviour. Willpower is finite and our strategy shouldn't rely on it being infinite.
Low carb diets work because for many people, sugar pushes the body's hormonal set-point/comfort zone upward in the heavier direction.
A nice example:
Lets say a pound of fat is 3500kcals. Now let's say we have a 6 year old child who is 50lbs overweight. That is one big kid. What a greedy *kitten*, amirite? He must have been packing so many cookies away on a daily basis to get that big, eh... Wrong:
(50 * 3500kcals) / 6 years = a daily overeat/under-exercise of approximately 80 kcals.
80...kcals. 80 pathetic kcals. How irresponsible of him.
Calorie balance has a 1:1 relationship with weight change. It is not a cause, so much as it is simply part of the same thing.
A hormonal feedback loop is what actually controls this system via behaviour (we see this as satiety and how 'energetic' we feel), and sugar adjusts this feedback loop.
Sure, if you've got the right mental and physical makeup, you can force yourself eat less and 'shock' your body into a burning its calories, perhaps even without your metabolic rate coming down too much, but it's far more pleasant, sustainable and realistic to work WITH your biochemistry here than against it.
TL;DR: Taking sugar out of the equation makes our bodies regulate their energy balance(and therefore weight) properly with relatively little conscious effort required, just as it should be.
Oh, and don't worry about your weight. Weight can be made of a bunch of different things and, let's be honest, who apart from fighters trying to fit into a particular weight class actually cares how HEAVY they are (?). Take the right measurements - ones which reflect your goals. If you want to be smaller, get a tape measure. If you want to be less jiggly, get a...erm..jiggle-o-meter? Y'know what I'm saying.
Also a pound of fat per week is plenty. regardless of what various magazines might say.
And well done, you're doing great!
so a calorie deficit is somehow torturing yourself, but restricting an entire food group is OK..got ya ..
so much wrong with this post..0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 395 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
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions