rebeccaker wrote: »

Ok I am new to this low carb eating. My question is do we still stick to our daily calories or just focus on our carbs? If I just stick to the carbs I think that I will be well below my calories for the day. Sorry if this is a dumb question.

Reb;

It can be tough in the beginning to hit both, but it's not impossible. Mostly a matter of paying close attention the the specific foods you choose for each meal.

For me, what made it easier is looking at the diary totals as you log meals and plan the remainder of the day. Low on fat after breakfast, add extra for lunch/diner. High on protein, select a food for dinner that's low protein/high fat, etc.

It's really just a learning process and becoming familiar with the macros for various foods.

As time goes on, you'll likely have "issues" hitting cal targets, not because of the numbers but just because your "appetite" (hunger) desires will decrease - you just won't "feel like" eating enough. (Not the worst thing in the world if weigh loss is your goal).

Remember too that as time goes on and your weight decreases it will be necessary to re-evaluate your cal target and therefore your macros as well.

Once you are comfortable, focus first on the macros and less on the cals, they will pretty much take care of themselves.

And no, it's NOT a "dumb question" - no one was born knowing this stuff.

Kmhornak wrote: »

DAM5412 wrote: »

Welcome Rebeccaker! I think you have to watch both, with the carb count being the priority, keeping it low. Secondary is hitting your calorie goals, which is tough to do when eating low carb. If you let your overall calories drop too low, weight loss can stall AND you will feel crappy.

Can I ask how if letting calories get too low that weight loss can stall? I asked a similar question on the main boards and got blasted about my plan. Everyone told me weight loss is all about calorie deficit. Based on what you are saying, this isn't the case. Can you just clarify what you mean when you mention a weight loss stall with eating too little? Why is that? Thanks!

KMH:

You "...got blasted" on the main boards? - I'm SHOCKED!!! <VBG> (Trust me, you're not the first).

Coming over to the "enlightened" side requires an open mind and a willingness to accept that not everything in the "diet" world exists as either black or white. Quite the opposite really, almost everything is some shade of gray.

Pretty much everything espoused by the "experts" over there is dogma and (according to them) - "common wisdom" and "everyone knows...." and if you don't agree, you're stupid.

In real life, it's ALL a spectrum, almost nothing is hard and fast, and anything presented as "common wisdom" is usually neither "common" nor "wisdom". It's just the limit of their understanding of the science, what they've "heard", and what they know that anyone who questions the dogma will get them thrown out of the "club".

"A calorie is a calorie",
"all that matters is that calories in is less than calories out",
"one can't possibly lose weight without doing x hours of y exercise a day",
"the more carbs and protein the better",
"low cal and low fat foods are healthy",
"too few calories will put you in starvation mode and weight loss will stop (or gain),
the list goes on and on.....

In fact, not one of those bedrock beliefs of their's are true across the board.

To your original question though, while "starvation mode" is, pure and simple a myth, there IS some truth to the idea that a reduction in caloric intake CAN down regulate (slow down) overall metabolism somewhat. And yes, it IS possible that a portion of the weight loss might be muscle loss - but it need NOT be.

Likewise, a calorie is NOT a calorie (they're NOT all the same, it's just not that simplistic).

As DAM said, those of us who focus on the LCHF recognize that while keeping an eye on calorie intake matters, the macros (fats, carbs, and protein), and the proportions of each matter much MORE.

Secondarily, once the body has adapted to the LCHF (burning fat as the primary energy source instead of carbs) the hunger "cravings" naturally decrease to the point where (for most) it's no longer necessary to obsess about calories - just listening to what your body tells you as to when it's "hungry" will keep caloric intake where it needs to be.

As your body adjusts and adapts there will be some "bumps" in the road (weight loss stalls, even unexplained gains) - they are normal and to be expected. Sometimes an adjustment (changing up the macro ratios some or otherwise modifying the routine) is necessary, in most cases it's just a matter of giving it some time.

Nothing happens overnight, nor does what works for one person necessarily work for the next but the "basics" pretty much apply across the board.

Most importantly, while LCHF (in its various forms) is NOT, first and foremost a "magic" weight loss program - it's about overall health and wellness.

Think of the weight loss as an "added benefit", a bonus, but it's all the other improvements in how your body processes food that really matter.

Yeah I have been blasted over there before too. For me I know that going low carb is the only way I am going to lose weight this time around. I have hormone issues up the wazoo and lupus, and what's recommend for both of these ailments? Low carb. I've tried to do it before and haven't made it very far because I don't cook a lot and stuff but this time I am more committed than ever. I know it's not good to be negative but I'll just say it... I'm tired of feeling fat. I've had two babies in 15 months and also took and passed the Bar exam in 2011 after graduating law school so it's no small wonder why I am 80 lbs overweight now!

Kmhornak wrote: »

DAM5412 wrote: »

Welcome Rebeccaker! I think you have to watch both, with the carb count being the priority, keeping it low. Secondary is hitting your calorie goals, which is tough to do when eating low carb. If you let your overall calories drop too low, weight loss can stall AND you will feel crappy.

Can I ask how if letting calories get too low that weight loss can stall? I asked a similar question on the main boards and got blasted about my plan. Everyone told me weight loss is all about calorie deficit. Based on what you are saying, this isn't the case. Can you just clarify what you mean when you mention a weight loss stall with eating too little? Why is that? Thanks!

Over the very long term, it is impossible to maintain a given weight while starving yourself or eating a very low calorie diet. However, in order to get to that point, your body first goes through a number of attempts to maintain itself, before giving up those precious energy stores (the lengths to which the body goes before that point depends on the person).

When food stops coming in, or comes in at way too low a level to sufficiently maintain the body, the body has to "ration" the fuel it does have. The cells don't know that you're starving them by choice, so they don't know how long this will last. Therefore, they will do things to conserve energy, such as making you slow down, lowering your body temperature, repairing cells instead of just replacing them, slowing or stopping hair and nail growth, etc.

There comes a point where that's not sufficient, and the body has to burn energy stores in order to fuel the vital processes and keep you alive. The body has certain priority levels for different types of tissues. It tries to preserve organs, but muscles and fat are both fair game (because that's what fat is for, and muscle is metabolically expensive, so burning muscle decreases energy requirements). The body eventually starts losing weight, when its conservation efforts have failed.

Before you get to that point, though, you can maintain weight on what should be a deficit, due to the above mechanisms.

The body is an interesting machine, because short-term cycles of "famine" (ie - intermittent fasting) has been shown to be beneficial, because things like cell repair (vs replacement) are among the first things to happen, and those processes have been shown to be beneficial. Fasting also generally results in a mild state of ketosis, which has neurological benefits. Like most other things about humanity and the world, it's when taken to extremes that these beneficial things become a problem.

Deliseford wrote: »

Hi everyone, I'm relatively new to MFP and totally new to LCHF diet, but I'm giving it a shot. I have a couple questions based on what I’ve read here and other places. Maybe someone can help me out?

I’ve done soo much research over the last week or so and (of course) even for this diet plan there are so many variations. I’m not trying to do a strict Keto diet because I don’t have the desire to over-obsess about getting carbs down so low (5% is really hard!). My ratios are 30/60/10 (protein/fat/carb). I am trying to workout at least 4 times a week. My goals are weight loss, fitter body (esp ab area) and mental health (I suffer from depression and anxiety disorder).

Here are my questions that could benefit from experienced people:

• I’ve heard that under 50g is considered low-carb. Currently I’m hitting about 40g a day, pretty much all from veggies and some dairy (for fat intake). Is this enough low carb to balance the high fat and still lose weight?

Del;

Technically, there is no universally accepted definition of the term "low carb" and you are correct in saying that there are a number of variations.

If for no other reason than to establish some sort of common ground for the discussion I think most would agree on something close to the following: (all numbers in terms of NET carbs)
- Anything above 150-200 grams/day (which is likely the majority of the population) doesn't qualify,
- 100-150 might be labeled "lowER carb" (still relatively high by low carber standards but at the same time orders of magnitude better (healthier) than the "norm")
- <100 the onset of LC and if combined with proper macro ratios, most importantly fat, the upper range of LCHF
- >50, <100 is probably the range that the largest segment of those actively engaged in LCHF live in (no actual data to back this up, just a WAG on my part,
- >20, <50 the range where those who have entered into some level of ketosis (it's a continuum, not an "on/off" switch) fall,
- <20 for a period of (usually) at least a few weeks (sometimes months) for folks actively engaged in obtaining and maintaining the maximum benefits of ketosis.

Which level ANY individual selects for themselves is entirely their choice - one is not necessarily "better" than another and many elect to proceed through the levels in a slow, deliberate fashion, allowing their bodies to adjust to the changes and giving themselves time to learn exactly what it takes, food wise, to do so. (This is a process I wholeheartedly endorse)

It's really not "...really hard.." - but it does take getting used to which is why I believe the "baby steps" approach is more likely to have a higher degree of success than "cold turkey".

All of that said, there is NOTHING saying that anyone "must" go lower than 100, 50, or any other specific level - you must find what works best for you and you can sustain, that's many times more important than any number.
[/quote]

deansdad101 wrote: »

For me, what made it easier is looking at the diary totals as you log meals and plan the remainder of the day. Low on fat after breakfast, add extra for lunch/diner. High on protein, select a food for dinner that's low protein/high fat, etc.

[*] Does it really matter what time of day I eat these things? Should each meal be balanced ratio-wise or can it be spread out over the day. I think it’s pretty balanced right now.

No, I wasn't clear. Wasn't talking about any specific time of day, only that one look at the entire day's levels - i.e. if your macros are higher or lower (as a percentage) after breakfast (or breakfast + lunch) then make whatever dinner selections will put your overall day totals back in range. Too high in protein?, don't select a high protein dinner food, etc

[*] It seems that a lot of the things I’m eating for snacks that are low carb have a lot of salt in them. I’ve never been a big salt eater, any thoughts on how to manage that, or if I should worry?

Haven't looked at your diary as to what specific snack foods, but if they are processed stuff you'll want to find better choices. Eliminating the processed stuff will automatically drop sodium levels and in most cases actually require that you ADD sodium (since low carb accelerates the excretion and it must be replaced - typically daily total recommendations run 3-5k/day).
And NO you do not need to be overly concerned about increasing sodium levels (barring any specific medical condition of course).

[*] I feel that while I’m hitting my ratios/grams per category pretty well, I’m missing on a lot of specific nutrients (fiber! Also vitamins). Any recommended supplements/vitamins to help balance this out?

Most need to add sodium which can be done with a cup or two of broth/day.
Potassium and magnesium levels should be watched as well and can be supplemented with a daily multi vitamin.

[*] There is talk here about too few calories. I am going at 1200 a day for a defecit, with added calories to maintain that level on days that I workout (according to what MFP says I "earn" per workout). How many calories is too low to be healthy?

The dogma says that 1200 is the absolute "drop dead" (almost literally <g>) minimum - that number is based mostly on CYA legal bull, not science.
Your number might be higher or lower and all the various "calculators" not withstanding, they are ALL, at best, "guesstimates".
If you are comfortable with 1200 stick with it for now, give it time (at least a few weeks as you adjust to the new diet style and most importantly - listen to what your body is telling you, it will "know" if you're hungry or satiated, make whatever adjustments you need to as time goes on and you have a valid data base on which to make an informed decision.

Finally, I’m looking for friends to compare notes with and share Diaries so that I can see what other people on this type of diet plan are doing. Please add me!

Sorry so many questions but I really want to do this right!

Finally, start out with the macros you've established and "ease in" to LCHF.
Look to increase the fat content and lower the protein as you progress.
With time, and IF you decide to lower carbs to the point of keto adaptation, <20/day is the generally accepted "magic" number BUT, nothing says you "must" go there and even IF you decide to do so, it's much easier if you have the rest of the macro (and micros) figured out first.

Best of luck and welcome aboard.

Thanks for the advice deansdad and 17JayR! Definitely eases the anxiety of overwhelm I think I'll stay where I'm at for now, as it feels fairly comfortable, except maybe lower the sodium a little, because it really does seem too high for my taste.

Thanks again!