Not losing weight on low carb?
Options
Replies
-
Read it again.
It's not the physiology, it's the psychological conditioning.
Plus, I think there's a great deal of research that needs to be done into the role of the stomach in people's perception of hunger. A stomach that is constantly exposed to large amounts of food might be a part of the abnormal response to basic hunger signals in those who find themselves slaves to food cravings.
But again, it's not the physiology. It's the psychological conditioning that the morning water fast facilitates.
I have done IF and I found it more psychologically exhausting than eating 3 big meals or even 6. So again, it's personal preference. If the OP doesn't like breakfast, IF would be beneficial. If frequent meals keeps her on track, then great. But in the end, if the total calories are consistent, fat loss will be the same.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »
Yes, parkscs clarified what I meant perfectly, thanks. That's what I was referring to. That and fake people.
It IS completely a matter of CICO. Most low-carbers get that and will say that. There is a medical reason OP is on a LC diet. And though I don't have medical issues, it has 1)helped force portion control to retrain myself, 2)helped me naturally lower calories by staying fuller more easily, 3)helped get rid of horrible cravings that lead me to binge. So, yes, though it is CICO, people are medically steered to LC diets for certain reasons and people gravitate there for their own reasons like mine. All weight loss requires a calorie deficit no matter which plan you use. And some people are personally better able to sustain some plans than others.
It just seems to me that many IIFYM and other normal calorie deficit folks are under the mistaken impression that we believe that low-carb is voodoo magic that violates the laws of physiology. That isn't the case.
We do CICO our own way and to us it is better than the rest, for us. But we realize there is more than one way to skin a cat. Skin your cat your way; we'll skin it ours. World peace ensues.
In terms of the highlight, this is the reason half of these discussions start. It's misinformation from both sides without knowing the full story. It's no different with sugar threads or detox threads or whatever. Whenever some provides one-sided science or makes magical claims, it will bring in those who disagree or want to provide a correction; one of those claims with jump starting your metabolism. Maybe the expression was tongue-and-cheek or metabolism it was legit.. who knows. My point being, for the most part, people on both sides of the argument want to make sure the OP understands the science and it's NOT the specific diet that makes you lose weight, but rather the calorie level. At the same point, there are those who just like argument or spew non-sense to start drama.
Granted. I don't have a problem if that is all that is going on in the comment. But it is often paired with "just eat what you want instead," which for many people doesn't work for multiple reasons, or some sort of negative judgment on low-carb diets. Some are trying it because run-of-the-mill calorie deficit failed over and over for them. And then there are those with medical issues. Telling them to just eat what they want can be harmful instead of helpful. And for those who just want to cut carbs to help cravings or to reestablish portion control, it is discouraging.
I, like many others, tried to eat trigger foods in moderation and failed every time. Low-carb diets can sometimes be the answer for people who need a crutch. And for those with medical issues of a certain type, low-carb IS the answer.0 -
You do not need to bother trying to "get in fat burning mode". When you eat fewer carbs to burn more fat, you're also eating more fat. So the fact that fat oxidation may go up in the short term doesn't mean squat.
Eating in a long term calorie deficit will cause you to lose fat regardless of which particular substrates you're burning in the short term. And note that this doesn't mean macronutrient intakes are irrelevant.
So wrong.
You are either in the carbohydrate burning mode, or the fat burning mode.
You must be in the fat burning mode, and running at a calorie deficit, in order to burn fat and so lose weight.
Read my long post again. This is basic physiology.
The way this was worded it sounded like you believe human beings can have carbohydrates in the body. I hope that is not what you meant.0 -
YurI
Read it again.
It's not the physiology, it's the psychological conditioning.
Plus, I think there's a great deal of research that needs to be done into the role of the stomach in people's perception of hunger. A stomach that is constantly exposed to large amounts of food might be a part of the abnormal response to basic hunger signals in those who find themselves slaves to food cravings.
But again, it's not the physiology. It's the psychological conditioning that the morning water fast facilitates.
I have done IF and I found it more psychologically exhausting than eating 3 big meals or even 6. So again, it's personal preference. If the OP doesn't like breakfast, IF would be beneficial. If frequent meals keeps her on track, then great. But in the end, if the total calories are consistent, fat loss will be the same.
This.
Take my breakfast away and I'll be very grumpy. I've lost 44 pounds and have been maintaining a healthy weight for almost a year, and I eat a big breakfast every day.
0 -
I guess I have to ask why the medical nutritionist put you on a low carb diet over just tracking your calories/fitting macros? Is it for a particular health reason? Is it to get you used to tracking and being conscious of what you are actually eating?
I only ask because I was an utter failure at low carb (I lasted 10 weeks and that was it). I never got over the carb cravings (I had vivid creams about the smell of fresh baking bread on an almost nightly basis). I ate to the plan and was still pissed off and hungry. And to top it off, I didn't lose that much weight. Add that to the fact that I knew I wouldn't be able to sustain the low carb thing forever, and it was all "give me a bagel, dammit!"
But if this is working for you now, good for you. Just don't be afraid to change things up if it isn't working. You need to figure out what works for you and is sustainable in the long term.
Nomad, you might want to try the Hagan approach.
I think you are realizing that weight loss at its core is a psychological game. Dealing with hunger cravings takes real discipline- and our media-driven culture doesn't help things.
Obesity comes from learned behavior- but that behavior can be "unlearned."
Try water-fasting for the morning. Sure, it will be uncomfortable, but you should be able to gut it out. Nothing bad will happen to physically. A lot of myths out there on this.
Why should you be able to gut it out?
Because in the afternoon and early evening, you can eat whatever you want, and in any amount. Then, after a 8-9 hour eat period, it is back to water-fasting until noon the next day.
So the morning should be endurable because you can eat whatever you fantasize about in the afternoon.
If you can keep this up for a few days, you should get used to the empty stomach in the morning, and you SHOULD find that your cravings change for the better.
This is huge. Your brain will begin to re-wire.
Now, people will jump all over this post for a variety of reasons that make perfect sense on the surface.
But if you have the courage to actually TRY it, I think you will be surprised.
Thanks but no. My brain doesn't need a re-write. I don't need to water fast. I don't need to change what time I eat. I don't need to "gut" anything out.
What I am doing now, counting calories and hitting my macros is working for me. I eat what I want, in smaller portions. I eat less, move more and make sure my calories coming in are less than what I am burning.
0 -
I guess I have to ask why the medical nutritionist put you on a low carb diet over just tracking your calories/fitting macros? Is it for a particular health reason? Is it to get you used to tracking and being conscious of what you are actually eating?
I only ask because I was an utter failure at low carb (I lasted 10 weeks and that was it). I never got over the carb cravings (I had vivid creams about the smell of fresh baking bread on an almost nightly basis). I ate to the plan and was still pissed off and hungry. And to top it off, I didn't lose that much weight. Add that to the fact that I knew I wouldn't be able to sustain the low carb thing forever, and it was all "give me a bagel, dammit!"
But if this is working for you now, good for you. Just don't be afraid to change things up if it isn't working. You need to figure out what works for you and is sustainable in the long term.
Nomad, you might want to try the Hagan approach.
What I am doing now, counting calories and hitting my macros is working for me. I eat what I want, in smaller portions. I eat less, move more and make sure my calories coming in are less than what I am burning.
LOL, why is it that every diet plan has to have a name or acronym to it for the plan to be effective? Whatever happened to just eating good food sources and not binging on crap?
I'm going to write about and call it the SIA77ABCDEFG123456 diet and it's going to be start with a small deficit, eat good food sources, and get some exercise in. I bet I'll be rich because I gave it a name.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »I guess I have to ask why the medical nutritionist put you on a low carb diet over just tracking your calories/fitting macros? Is it for a particular health reason? Is it to get you used to tracking and being conscious of what you are actually eating?
I only ask because I was an utter failure at low carb (I lasted 10 weeks and that was it). I never got over the carb cravings (I had vivid creams about the smell of fresh baking bread on an almost nightly basis). I ate to the plan and was still pissed off and hungry. And to top it off, I didn't lose that much weight. Add that to the fact that I knew I wouldn't be able to sustain the low carb thing forever, and it was all "give me a bagel, dammit!"
But if this is working for you now, good for you. Just don't be afraid to change things up if it isn't working. You need to figure out what works for you and is sustainable in the long term.
Nomad, you might want to try the Hagan approach.
What I am doing now, counting calories and hitting my macros is working for me. I eat what I want, in smaller portions. I eat less, move more and make sure my calories coming in are less than what I am burning.
LOL, why is it that every diet plan has to have a name or acronym to it for the plan to be effective? Whatever happened to just eating good food sources and not binging on crap?
I'm going to write about and call it the SIA77ABCDEFG123456 diet and it's going to be start with a small deficit, eat good food sources, and get some exercise in. I bet I'll be rich because I gave it a name.
I know right? I keep trying to come up with a catchy acronym so I can sell a million books.
Though, it probably wouldn't sell because there would be no "lose 20 lbs in 8 days" BS taglines. Slow and steady weight loss doesn't get the buzz like crazy unsustainable/unrealistic losses.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »I guess I have to ask why the medical nutritionist put you on a low carb diet over just tracking your calories/fitting macros? Is it for a particular health reason? Is it to get you used to tracking and being conscious of what you are actually eating?
I only ask because I was an utter failure at low carb (I lasted 10 weeks and that was it). I never got over the carb cravings (I had vivid creams about the smell of fresh baking bread on an almost nightly basis). I ate to the plan and was still pissed off and hungry. And to top it off, I didn't lose that much weight. Add that to the fact that I knew I wouldn't be able to sustain the low carb thing forever, and it was all "give me a bagel, dammit!"
But if this is working for you now, good for you. Just don't be afraid to change things up if it isn't working. You need to figure out what works for you and is sustainable in the long term.
Nomad, you might want to try the Hagan approach.
What I am doing now, counting calories and hitting my macros is working for me. I eat what I want, in smaller portions. I eat less, move more and make sure my calories coming in are less than what I am burning.
LOL, why is it that every diet plan has to have a name or acronym to it for the plan to be effective? Whatever happened to just eating good food sources and not binging on crap?
I'm going to write about and call it the SIA77ABCDEFG123456 diet and it's going to be start with a small deficit, eat good food sources, and get some exercise in. I bet I'll be rich because I gave it a name.
I know right? I keep trying to come up with a catchy acronym so I can sell a million books.
Though, it probably wouldn't sell because there would be no "lose 20 lbs in 8 days" BS taglines. Slow and steady weight loss doesn't get the buzz like crazy unsustainable/unrealistic losses.
Those crazy *kitten* diets should be required to add a disclaimer at the bottom of the book in big print that says, "research indicates that 80% of people that lose weight rapidly via an extreme diet gain it back and about 5% of them gain back weight in-excess of what they lost."
0 -
What nonsense is this? You can eat whatever you want in the afternoon and evening? Really? So I can wake-up at 8am knock back an extra large pizza for about 5000 calories and it's all good because it's the morning? Then late evening I have to take it easy and just eat under maintenance? That's not what you're saying is it? If it is please delete your account.-1 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »
What nonsense is this? You can eat whatever you want in the afternoon and evening? Really? So I can wake-up at 8am knock back an extra large pizza for about 5000 calories and it's all good because it's the morning? Then late evening I have to take it easy and just eat under maintenance? That's not what you're saying is it? If it is please delete your account.
Neither of us said that so I'm not sure which of us you're addressing. :huh:
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »
What nonsense is this? You can eat whatever you want in the afternoon and evening? Really? So I can wake-up at 8am knock back an extra large pizza for about 5000 calories and it's all good because it's the morning? Then late evening I have to take it easy and just eat under maintenance? That's not what you're saying is it? If it is please delete your account.
Neither of us said that so I'm not sure which of us you're addressing. :huh:
Wasn't directed at you but if you re-read that quote it sure seems like that's what was said. Unless I'm missing the sarcasm.0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »
What nonsense is this? You can eat whatever you want in the afternoon and evening? Really? So I can wake-up at 8am knock back an extra large pizza for about 5000 calories and it's all good because it's the morning? Then late evening I have to take it easy and just eat under maintenance? That's not what you're saying is it? If it is please delete your account.
Neither of us said that so I'm not sure which of us you're addressing. :huh:
Wasn't directed at you but if you re-read that quote it sure seems like that's what was said. Unless I'm missing the sarcasm.
No, he said as long as you skip breakfast you can eat anything you want in any amount you want for the rest of the day. It still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, though. :laugh:
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »
What nonsense is this? You can eat whatever you want in the afternoon and evening? Really? So I can wake-up at 8am knock back an extra large pizza for about 5000 calories and it's all good because it's the morning? Then late evening I have to take it easy and just eat under maintenance? That's not what you're saying is it? If it is please delete your account.
Neither of us said that so I'm not sure which of us you're addressing. :huh:
Wasn't directed at you but if you re-read that quote it sure seems like that's what was said. Unless I'm missing the sarcasm.
No, he said as long as you skip breakfast you can eat anything you want in any amount you want for the rest of the day. It still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, though. :laugh:
Exactly, redunkulous comment. If that were true I wouldn't eat all day and I would just go grab a *kitten* load of something fun to eat after work and not worry about it.
0 -
Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »I guess I have to ask why the medical nutritionist put you on a low carb diet over just tracking your calories/fitting macros? Is it for a particular health reason? Is it to get you used to tracking and being conscious of what you are actually eating?
I only ask because I was an utter failure at low carb (I lasted 10 weeks and that was it). I never got over the carb cravings (I had vivid creams about the smell of fresh baking bread on an almost nightly basis). I ate to the plan and was still pissed off and hungry. And to top it off, I didn't lose that much weight. Add that to the fact that I knew I wouldn't be able to sustain the low carb thing forever, and it was all "give me a bagel, dammit!"
But if this is working for you now, good for you. Just don't be afraid to change things up if it isn't working. You need to figure out what works for you and is sustainable in the long term.
Nomad, you might want to try the Hagan approach.
What I am doing now, counting calories and hitting my macros is working for me. I eat what I want, in smaller portions. I eat less, move more and make sure my calories coming in are less than what I am burning.
LOL, why is it that every diet plan has to have a name or acronym to it for the plan to be effective? Whatever happened to just eating good food sources and not binging on crap?
I'm going to write about and call it the SIA77ABCDEFG123456 diet and it's going to be start with a small deficit, eat good food sources, and get some exercise in. I bet I'll be rich because I gave it a name.
I know right? I keep trying to come up with a catchy acronym so I can sell a million books.
Though, it probably wouldn't sell because there would be no "lose 20 lbs in 8 days" BS taglines. Slow and steady weight loss doesn't get the buzz like crazy unsustainable/unrealistic losses.
Those crazy *kitten* diets should be required to add a disclaimer at the bottom of the book in big print that says, "research indicates that 80% of people that lose weight rapidly via an extreme diet gain it back and about 5% of them gain back weight in-excess of what they lost."
The books that advocate eating a mild deficit and exercising regularly should add the same disclaimer, because failure rates are pretty comparable between the two groups. So... your point?0 -
I sincerely hope that you guys dismissing the approach are all fitness folks and not people who really want to lose weight.
It is a sad fact that some people wear their obesity badge proudly on their chest and are afraid to get their hands dirty and actually lose weight. They like their victimhood status.
Look dude, I'm not stupid. I know I can't eat anything I want as long as I skip breakfast. I do need to lose weight and believe it or not, I have managed to do so without you or your books. I have lost 27 pounds so far and I eat breakfast almost every day. When you stop stealing someone else's photo or heck, even acknowledge that you do so, I might consider listening to you. Might.
0 -
I sincerely hope that you guys dismissing the approach are all fitness folks and not people who really want to lose weight.
It is a sad fact that some people wear their obesity badge proudly on their chest and are afraid to get their hands dirty and actually lose weight. They like their victimhood status.
Yeah iim actually almost at my target goal. It is basic physics that if you eat more than you burn you will gain weight. Your body doesn't have some magic clock that resets after 14 hours of nothing. All you will get by doing that is cranky and more likely to binge after. So no thanks. Ill keep my breakfast and snacks and trust me. Im no victim.0 -
Who are the "misinformers"? I mean I can only think of the one fake guy...
There's plenty, although the typical post isn't so much misinformation as unsolicited advice to completely overhaul the OP's routine. But as far as misinformers, we could start with:Agreed. Also, I'd see a dietitian over a nutritionist as they have more education. Being in a full state of ketosis isn't healthy and can lead to high cholesterol, kidney problems, kidney stones, osteoporosis, and of course all the diseases linked to high cholesterol like heart disease. Carbs are absolutely necessary in one's diet to fuel your brain and cells. Any nutritionist that recommends a low carb diet is not a nutritionist that I would recommend.
What information is wrong in my response?! I got this information out of a book.
Lol, this thread is ridiculous.0 -
Who are the "misinformers"? I mean I can only think of the one fake guy...
There's plenty, although the typical post isn't so much misinformation as unsolicited advice to completely overhaul the OP's routine. But as far as misinformers, we could start with:Agreed. Also, I'd see a dietitian over a nutritionist as they have more education. Being in a full state of ketosis isn't healthy and can lead to high cholesterol, kidney problems, kidney stones, osteoporosis, and of course all the diseases linked to high cholesterol like heart disease. Carbs are absolutely necessary in one's diet to fuel your brain and cells. Any nutritionist that recommends a low carb diet is not a nutritionist that I would recommend.
What information is wrong in my response?! I got this information out of a book.
Lol, this thread is ridiculous.
Sounds legit.
Edit: To be a bit less snarky... what book? Did you read and consider the texts that dispute these points? For that matter, did you look at your book's sources? Particularly, the studies the book relies on to make these broad, sweeping conclusions? How about the assumptions about a low carb diet that the author(s) made when drawing these (again) broad, sweeping conclusions? Did you consider the diets these low carb diets are being compared to when saying they are "more likely" to cause kidney damage? Or did you just read it somewhere and repeat it as dogma?
I'll give you an example of why I'm raising this. You raise the notion of kidney problems, and what this book was likely referring to was studies showing that people that are pre-disposed to kidney problems may be at an increased risk on a higher protein diet, and since low carb diets may be higher in protein than some diets, this can arguably lead to an "increased risk" of kidney problems for some people. Not everyone, and not relative to diets with the same or even higher protein intake, but higher for some specific demographics. Okay, that's fine, but it's not a broad sweeping statement that low carb diets = kidney problems.
Add to that, you've got a guy agreeing with you eating 250+ g of protein every day at a pretty light body weight, which is probably double the amount of protein recommended by the average low carb diet for someone his size. So let's think about this - it's the protein intake, not the lack of carbs, that suggests some people are at a higher risk of developing kidney problems. And we've got someone eating 200% as much protein saying yeah, I agree, you tell 'em!
I'm really not trying to pick on anyone, but it makes absolutely no sense. And that's why I call it misinformation.0 -
Who are the "misinformers"? I mean I can only think of the one fake guy...
There's plenty, although the typical post isn't so much misinformation as unsolicited advice to completely overhaul the OP's routine. But as far as misinformers, we could start with:Agreed. Also, I'd see a dietitian over a nutritionist as they have more education. Being in a full state of ketosis isn't healthy and can lead to high cholesterol, kidney problems, kidney stones, osteoporosis, and of course all the diseases linked to high cholesterol like heart disease. Carbs are absolutely necessary in one's diet to fuel your brain and cells. Any nutritionist that recommends a low carb diet is not a nutritionist that I would recommend.
What information is wrong in my response?! I got this information out of a book.
Lol, this thread is ridiculous.
Sounds legit.
It's called "The 80/10/10 Diet" By Douglas Graham. Check it out.
EDIT:
Here's a quote from his book.
"When one is eating enough carbohydrates, fat can be completely broken down as well. But when one's body runs our of carb fuel to burn, its only choice is to burn fat ineffeciently using a pathway that produces toxic byproducts like acetone and other so-called "ketones."
The kidney uses minerals such as potassium and calcium to help rid one's body of toxins like ketones. People on the Atkins Diet are urinating these minerals away. And critically low levels in the blood of these electrolytes can lead to fatal cardiac arrhythmias- lethal heart rhythms.
.....the symptoms of ketosis include general tiredness, abrupt or gradually increasing weaknes, dizziness, headaches, confusion, (etc).... Those are just the short-term effects."
"Dr. Greger's full document details literally dozens of additional diseases and problems brought on by this deadly diet, including: malnutrition; cancer, stroke, osteoporosis, diabetes; potential kidney, bone, liver, and cholesterol abnormalities....etc."
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions