Hi Angela,
I bet if you tracked your calories, you would find that you are under your calories.

Low carb is basically a way of restricting your calories. The benefit though (or at least for most people) is when eating high fat/mod protein/low carb you feel full longer and eat less. (And honestly, not eating things like Little Debbies anymore since I could polish off a whole box in a day if I wanted to. Not eating those things at all is easier for me than moderation).

The first "round" of LCHF eating for me, I had no clue why it worked, I lost weight, and all I did was watch carbs. I was losing so I didn't have a need to watch calories and I didn't even think about it because I didn't really understand how low carb "worked".

TBH, if you are new to this way of eating and are just getting the hang of counting carbs and what foods to eat and you're losing, I would say not to focus so much on calories right at this moment. However, once you get a hang of it you might want to start logging calories too. If you stop losing or as you get closer to your goal weight, you will have less room for error and seeing the whole picture will make it easier to figure out why you're gaining/stalling.

angelic843 wrote: »

I opened my diary.

Ang;

Where did your current cal/macro numbers come from?

Did you go to the calculator link above and if so, what did that suggest?

angelic843 wrote: »

My stats from the website you recommended are:

2682 for a deficit
50g Carbs
115g Protein
225g Fat

I adjusted my goals toward those figures.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Ang;

That looks MUCH better.

Your "job" now is to try your best to come as close as you can to them - every day.

It's going to be a very big transition for your body (metabolically) so don't get discouraged if you "miss" once in a while and expect that during the switch you'll likely face some unpleasantness - it's totally normal. (Read other threads for the "typical" things folks experience.

If you find it just too difficult to cut to 50 carbs/day right out of gate, change your goal to something less restrictive (maybe 100-125) and focus on hitting that EVERY day. Once you can, reduce it by 10-20 and when comfortable there, reduce it again until you get to 50.

One quick observation - keep an eye on your sodium intake, you have a tendency to go quite a bit over on occasion. General guideline is 3-5000k/day (which is significantly higher than USDA guidelines but as your progress on LCHF you will require higher than "normal" levels to replace that which is lost.) As long as there are no medical issues that dictate lower levels, you'll be fine at 3-5k.

Remember it's the "end game" that matters, NOT whether you lose (or gain) 2 pounds today or tomorrow.

For now, don't get hung up on "am I in keto....", or measuring with the urine strips, it's basically a waste of time and money and unreliable (at best).

Becoming adapted is your goal and it takes at least 4-6 weeks (for most) so focus on what counts - sticking to your daily goals.

Read through the back threads on this group and take a look at other's diaries for ideas on how they do it (food/menu wise), and answers to many of the questions you'll have along the way.

Anything that's not clear or you still have questions about - ASK. There are many folks here who have traveled the road before you and are more than willing to help in any way they can.

Thanks for posting Ang! I have been scouring the web trying to figure out if I need to count my calories as religiously as I did on a LF diet... (obvi still tracking all food eaten so I know how many carbs etc I've ingested)

Still working to get the hang of this-- I used the keto calculator that someone suggested in another thread and that is where I got my numbers but I still feel unsure if I am doing this 'correctly'? Only day 4 of lchf for me so I know I need to give it more time ( like 4 weeks more)

Missing my bananas like crazy

I don't count calories on a low carb diet. The calorie in calorie out theory is incomplete at best and useless at worst. Just keep eating to satiety and listen to your body. I can gain easily on a low fat diet eating 1800-200 cals, while losing 2-3 lbs a week eating 2200-2300 cals. Keep the Protein to 1g / Kg of weight, Carbs around 5 % and fat 70-80%. After few weeks, you can increase carbs if you like to. First 3-4 weeks is the toughest part of a low carb diet, after few weeks it gets lot easier.

Leonidas_meets_Spartacus wrote: »

I don't count calories on a low carb diet. The calorie in calorie out theory is incomplete at best and useless at worst. Just keep eating to satiety and listen to your body. I can gain easily on a low fat diet eating 1800-200 cals, while losing 2-3 lbs a week eating 2200-2300 cals. Keep the Protein to 1g / Kg of weight, Carbs around 5 % and fat 70-80%. After few weeks, you can increase carbs if you like to. First 3-4 weeks is the toughest part of a low carb diet, after few weeks it gets lot easier.

cindytw wrote: »

So calories DO matter after a point. You go from a high carb diet to suddenly low carb...you are going to lose a lot the first week and 2. After that, you have to start looking at calories and macros again...so that you keep low carb and high fat and work with what your particular body likes in ratios. If you keep high fat you can work the other 2 macros and be satiated and fine while doing so.

Cindy/Leon;

My "take" on it (currently and subject to change based on new info) lies pretty much dead smack in the middle between each of yours.

I start from the position that "almost" everything each of you have said is TRUE (for "you" and some proportion of the overall population of LCHF'ers)

I concur that CICO is "...incomplete at best and useless at worst" - but in a somewhat different context. It's not (IMO) that absolute total cals don't matter (they do), but rather the "your daily goal" or "you will lose x by if you consume Y", numbers generated by the various calculators are so wildly inaccurate (and subject to individual variation) as to be essentially useless - EXCEPT as a "benchmark".

Leon's example, "I can gain easily on a low fat diet eating 1800-200 cals, while losing 2-3 lbs a week eating 2200-2300 cals", makes perfect sense to me.

It has been confirmed in a number of controlled studies that a LCHF "diet" DOES produce greater weight loss at a fixed cal intake (controlled) level than does the SAD (high carb) diet. His example simply takes it one step "higher" showing that even WITH an increase in cals (in his case), the hypothesis is confirmed.

BUT - the operative phrase is "in his case". I would argue that his is not "typical" of the majority of the group members here (or even of LCHF'ers in general), if for no other reason than the "extreme" (by comparison) levels of exercise intensity and dedication. So while I have no question that "his" results apply to "him", I"m not sure they would hold up for most (at least to the same degree).

I agree with the protein recommendation although I'd go a "small" step further and suggest that 0.5-0.6g/# of LBM (rather than total body weight) "might" prove to be a better recommendation for a "starting point" for those new to LCHF and NK/FA. More clinical testing needs to be done and it's a relatively minor difference but the "point" is that we have been conditioned to believe that we "require" MUCH higher protein intake levels (primarily by the exercise and sports "experts" and vendors of supplements) than current research supports.

We (Leon & I) disagree on the need to "count" cal intake though. It's important to recognize the distinction between "counting" (as in considering the number an absolutely critical "target"), vs. "tracking" (logging daily intake).

"Counting" is, as I think we agree, an exercise in futility if for no other reason than that the calculator produced numbers are so inaccurate.

"Tracking", however, IS important if for no other reason than that one cannot accurately compute macro %'s without doing it. One can argue that once someone has determined their carb and protein tolerance numbers in absolute terms (i.e. 17g carbs/55g protein) all that's left is fat and that's true, BUT, without a cal number it's impossible to "know" the fat %. (or if total cal intake is "reasonable" considering BMR/TDEE/etc).

If one considers the "cal intake" number as not only a "moving target" but also important ONLY (or at least primarily) in RELATIVE terms it can provide a great deal of benefit for those attempting to determine their individual levels of carb and protein tolerance.

It matters not if the cal intake number is 2000 or 2500 or even if the number is "right" or not. What matters is that if one is maintaining "X" cal intake and not seeing the results (either in BOHB numbers OR weight loss goals), something has to change and the cal intake number is one of those things (along with macro %'s, and maybe even more importantly macro composition) to consider.

All of which is a long winded way to say that, YES Cindy, I do agree that "...calories DO matter" - just not in the way that the "lemmings" (NOT YOU) use the statement to end the discussion when they reach their level understanding (which for the most part ends at "a cal is a cal" and "1st law of thermodynamics".

Recent research has demonstrated, quite convincingly (at least to me) that while LCHF (but more specifically Fat Adapted NK) is significantly "better" than SAD (for our purposes) -

FA/NK, combined with calorie restriction, is "MORE BETTER" <g>

Some (probably Leon and others) will argue that calorie restriction just "comes naturally" when adapted and that is not only "true" (IMO) but, one of the major benefits. I'd argue that for those beginning, or not actually fully fat adapted (and verifiably so), cal "tracking" is essential.

There are other reasons why it (tracking) "matters" of course, but in this context, I firmly believe that "newbies" (especially) should not be encouraged to "not" track (or that it doesn't matter).

metta4 wrote: »

Hypothetically; you have met your macros for the day, and you are going to overeat *something*, is fat the best macro to overeat, as it won't affect ketosis?

Met;

Yes

"Hypothetically", AND assuming the other macros are correct - but as a general rule, yes.

If by "overeat" you mean exceeding you cal intake goal, AND if you know that number to be "correct" - then it's "best" to just NOT have whatever it is that puts you over.

If it's a question of not having reached satiety - add the fat.

If all these numbers are overwhelming, read the material from Dr Eric Westman. He just lists foods you can eat and what you need to avoid. Just eat till your full from those list. It's a very simple but effective way to lose weight.