Confused, Help - Moderation or low carb?
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Low carb diets are unsustainable.
Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?
Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.
They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
"You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.
In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.
Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets
"An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"
Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
----
So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?
"generally talking through your hat"
Did you just completely ignore the fact that these are quotes from the professsionals, and not myself for your own self-purpose?
There wouldn't be a keto group on MFP if what you're saying is true. We'd all be dead.
There are some that have been doing it for YEARS and have great health and are very active.
Also, NO they are not recommended for short term fixes. Often people with diabetes and PCOS use low carb dieting to not only lose weight but to improve their health. There are people with diabetes that are able to reduce the need for meds through their diet. Are you saying once the diabetes are under control they should just go back to a more traditional, higher carb diet?0 -
Weight loss = DEFICIT FROM CALORIES..... NOT CARBS.0
-
hastingsmassage wrote: »You need carbs to have strenght. You can't stop eating them.
This is false. Carbs only give quick energy, not strength.0 -
"Whiles I have found low carb gives you quicker weightloss and good for diabetics"
Incorrect. Calorie deficit = weight loss. So low carb coupled with high fat is just asking for trouble.
Again, false. Low carb and low fat causes problems with low energy, headaches, fatigue, etc...because the only thing left to be high is protein and high protein with low carbs and fat is hard for your body to digest.0 -
I could spend all day here, calling out the half-truths and opinions stated as facts, but unfortunately that's not productive for anyone.
Low carb is a sustainable long-term lifestyle for millions of people. Calorie restriction is not.
Carbs are not NECESSARY for any body function.
Energy comes from calories, calories come from carbs, fat and protein.
Strength comes from muscle. Muscle is built through exercise, not carbs.
Endurance comes from training. Many strength and endurance athletes eat low carb.
Low carb nutrition is often prescribed by real doctors and nutritionists for many health issues, including insulin resistance, diabetes and epilepsy.
Low carb diets have been around as long as people have been around. It is not a fad, an extreme or a quick fix, by any measure.
For the OP, just do your research, both online and as well in observing your own progress and well being based on changes you make thoughtfully. Every BODY is different. What works really well for one person may in fact be detrimental to another. You will get all kinds of bad advice on these forums, but there are also many jewels. Just take what works for you and leave the rest.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Low carb diets are unsustainable.
Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?
Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.
They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
"You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.
In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.
Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets
"An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"
Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
----
So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?
I know tons of high performance body builders who are low carb. I eat less than 30-75 net grams of carbs a day and I bike 15 miles a day and lift heavy 3 times a week with no problems. I also just ran my first half marathon with no issues. No one is saying one diet has to be better than the other. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with long term low carb. The body does not need carbs for fuel if it has fat to burn. I also eat a ton of veggies. You can eat copious amounts of nutrient dense vegetables on a low carb diet, and I get plenty of calcium from veggies and raw milk. And I actually don't eat super high fat. I get the natural fat from my protein sources and I use small amounts of coconut or avocado oil when cooking some of my vegetables. I also eat an average of 1500-1900 calories a day and I'm only 5ft tall. I am insulin resistant and carb sensitive. I struggle to maintain on a standard American diet at 1200-1400 calories even when working out. And yes I know how to accurately track my calories and weigh my food. It's all about finding what is best for your body and your sustainability.0 -
Removed for the sake or arguing with dumb people... not even worth it.-3
-
I could spend all day here, calling out the half-truths and opinions stated as facts, but unfortunately that's not productive for anyone.
Low carb is a sustainable long-term lifestyle for millions of people. Calorie restriction is not.
Carbs are not NECESSARY for any body function.
Energy comes from calories, calories come from carbs, fat and protein.
Strength comes from muscle. Muscle is built through exercise, not carbs.
Endurance comes from training. Many strength and endurance athletes eat low carb.
Low carb nutrition is often prescribed by real doctors and nutritionists for many health issues, including insulin resistance, diabetes and epilepsy.
Low carb diets have been around as long as people have been around. It is not a fad, an extreme or a quick fix, by any measure.
For the OP, just do your research, both online and as well in observing your own progress and well being based on changes you make thoughtfully. Every BODY is different. What works really well for one person may in fact be detrimental to another. You will get all kinds of bad advice on these forums, but there are also many jewels. Just take what works for you and leave the rest.
I agree with a lot of what you stated, however you can't say that you could call out opinions stated as facts and then say "Calorie Restriction is not (sustainable)". One, low carb is in a sense calorie restriction and two, it may not be for you, but it may be for other people very sustainable.0 -
I eat 400g of carbs daily... am I low carb? Plz tell me so I am!-1
-
martyqueen52 wrote: »Weight loss = DEFICIT FROM CALORIES..... NOT CARBS.
You are really asking for me to bring out Captain Obvious. No one is saying or has yet said that the reduction in carbs on it's own is what causes weight loss. The contrary has been repeatedly expressed. You should unbunch your panties. Perhaps the kind of attention you seek can be found elsewhere. Say in the Chat, Fun, and gif section perhaps?0 -
martyqueen52 wrote: »I eat 400g of carbs daily... am I low carb? Plz tell me so I am!
umm, good for you? Do you need attention or something?0 -
I personally have changed to low carb as a lifestyle. I've lost 20 pounds in two months by following The New Atkins food ladder. I am eating a mostly clean diet. I no longer have cravings that the "bad" carbs cause. (Sugar was the root of my food addiction) I get most of my carbs from vegetables. The rest from berries, melon & dairy. Unfortunately people think "low carb" means "no carb". Yes I've had to give up things, good things, and maybe forever. But I've approached this as a lifestyle change and not a diet.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »martyqueen52 wrote: »I eat 400g of carbs daily... am I low carb? Plz tell me so I am!
umm, good for you? Do you need attention or something?
Nah bruh, do you?
0 -
I do great on low carb. Who wants to eat broccoli and Kale when you can eat bacon and steak.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Low carb diets are unsustainable.
Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?
Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.
They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
Say what again? I have been eating low carb for long time. Damn, I should have been dead by now if it was so bad.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Low carb diets are unsustainable.
Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?
Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.
They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
"You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.
In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.
Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets
"An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"
Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
----
So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?
LOL0 -
Leonidas_meets_Spartacus wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Low carb diets are unsustainable.
Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?
Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.
They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
"You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.
In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.
Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets
"An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"
Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
----
So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?
LOL
My response, too. There is so much "can," "may," "if," and "might" in there that the authors shouldn't have bothered at all.
Nice use of unscientific language and FUD, though. "Wouldn't you say"...LOL.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »
Okay. "Not excessive." As with "healthy"--another subjective thing--it varies depending on one's overall goals. IMO, if you eat something to the extent that you fail to get adequate nutrition overall or gain weight or your diet fails to further other goals of yours, you are not eating moderately.
Unlike "clean" it does not mean that people who eat foods you don't are dirty or unclean or eat dirty or unclean food, and thus it is not rude in the same way.
It's rude. Saying that foods others eat are not "clean" is not a factual statement. It is an insult, and thus rude.
Also, continuing to use it after knowing others perceive it as rude or insulting would be rather impolite at the least even if it weren't already on its face rude. This is why I often ask why insist upon the terminology after that is known, especially since it adds nothing and is less clear than using something like "I eat mostly whole foods" or "I don't eat processed foods" (although the latter is almost always a lie). The fact that no one can give a good answer to this supports my belief that the insult is intended.
0 -
You might find South Beach Diet easier than Atkins. You don't need to count carbs. You just avoid sugar, white rice, white potatoes, white flour, white bread, etc. Instead, you eat the whole grains such as brown rice, whole wheat pasta, etc. You substitute sweet potatoes for white potatoes. And so on. It's not a hard diet plan. But, you can also just count calories and eat whatever you want in moderation. Either way works.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Low carb diets are unsustainable.
Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?
Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.
They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
Recommended by whom?
Low carb doesn't require that carbs be bad. It can premised on the idea that some people are better able to maintain a calorie deficit or even eat in maintenance if they restrict their carbs. It also doesn't mean no carb, and whether it works for you or not depends on how you feel on it.0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »For me, moderation means, paying attention to, and actually only eating, the correct recommended serving size, and not overindulging in any food, or beverage. But, it certainly is open to interpretation.
I don't actually think there is a "correct recommended serving size." The proper serving size is going to depend on how many calories overall you are eating and what else you are eating.
For example, when I first started this I was cutting my carbs more than I am now (wasn't actually low carb, but under 100 usually). I realized I was undereating, since I'd (among other things) kept my meat portions at what I considered a standard size (4 oz uncooked or so). After I realized this I got looser about that and focused more on the total calories in the meal. I'm still apt to eat, say, close to 8 oz of fish plus veggies if my protein is lower than I'd like as of dinner time. Is this immoderate?0 -
(*)0
-
Ok, so I am so confused as to what to do. I have been reading a lot on weightloss. Whiles I have found low carb gives you quicker weightloss and good for diabetics, I find it so hard to stick to a low carb diet such as atkins or say around 20grams of carbs a day as a lifestyle. so my question is can I eat regular things but try to watch my carbs and still loose weight or do I have to choose one low carb or calorie counting?
OP, that is a great question. I do not hold any degrees, but my opinion is that you can lose weight on any diet, no matter the carbs. The problem lies in how you are able to resist the sugary carbs and fight the urge to snack. If you cannot resist eating more than one slice, you should probably restrict carbs.
I am conducting an experiment on myself, an n=1 experiment. I am monitoring a variety of things, but among those things are hunger control and weight loss on a low-carb, ketogenic diet. I am restricting carbs to </= 10% and fat is no less than 70%, as a part of my total daily intake, while not restricting the amount I can eat. I am also applying the Harris-Benedict principle each day for comparison of weight loss results (i.e. what I achieved with how much I ate vs what the formula predicted).
If you would like to observe my experiment, I am making my raw data available to anyone who wishes to look at it. All you have to do is friend me and subscribe to my blog.
Hope everyone is having a good day!
Josh
0 -
I always been a carboholic, which ended me up diabetic and morbidly obese have dropped 72 lbs over the last three years with lots of yoyoing - decided last month to try very low carb under 50 grams after a bad summer - I've lost all my summer weight and am current at my lowest weight in years - more importantly my morning numbers are in the 95 to 105 range - down from a typical 120 to 130 - I've found my carb cravings have almost disappeared - been trying concentrate on healthly fats to make up the carbs- vitamins and good hydration - choose carbs with a high fiber content - I gave myself a cheat day of 180 grams - but after the first week my carb cravings have gone down to next to nothing - this looks like a lifestyle change for me - I think it's something to consider if your dealing with diabetes - there is a lot of supportive literature out there - biggest argument against is that it's hard to follow - but that doesn't seem like a good argument to me - they're all hard to follow - I think this diet is a big help in giving your malfuctioning pancreas a rest - I think eating in a 6 to 8 hour window is also good for your system0
-
Bump0
-
Up your fat intake with high quality fats (grass fed butter, ghee, palm oil, avocado oil, nuts, avocados, fish) and get your carbs in the 50-100 range, with protein being moderate. Maybe start at 100 carbs a day or even 125 if you need to ease into it. No need to get too low. Sugar/carbs matter. Although, if you want weight loss then you could probably eat McDonalds and find a way to lose. If you want your health plus weight loss then get around 100 carbs per day from organically grown veggies, nuts and a little white rice on occasion.0
-
Ok, so I am so confused as to what to do. I have been reading a lot on weightloss. Whiles I have found low carb gives you quicker weightloss and good for diabetics, I find it so hard to stick to a low carb diet such as atkins or say around 20grams of carbs a day as a lifestyle. so my question is can I eat regular things but try to watch my carbs and still loose weight or do I have to choose one low carb or calorie counting?
Both work well!
Both have success stories and both have people who vow that doing them was the worst experience of their lives and to steer clear.
The best thing to do is to flip a coin - heads low carb, tails calorie counting. Which ever it lands on try that diet (and give it your all) for 30 days. If at the end of 30 days its comfortable for you and you are starting to see results - stick with.
If at the end of the 30 days its really not for you, then switch and try the other one for 30 days.
I would suggest that going to the extremes (i.e. being neurotic about every ounce of food you weight, or eating barely no carbs) may make the experience less than comfortable.
For a decent low carb intake, somewhere around 100g a day is more than sufficient to get all your Micros Nutrients from mainly veg and some fruit.
Give em a try (both are healthy) - so what have you got you to lose!
Good luck0 -
Thank you all again for your input. I truly appreciate the support.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Low carb diets are unsustainable.
Why? Seems to me it depends on the person, and what he or she finds satisfying. For me eating about 150 g carbs seems to work best, although it might change over time. I can totally see that for someone else eating, say, less than 50 grams and more fat might work, especially if carbs made that person feel less satiated.So if you are just eating fat and not reducing your calorie intake, then what is the point of a low carb diet?
Typically, people on low carb diets eat some carbs and of course protein, not just fat. Also, more to the point, IMO low carb diets work because they are an easier way for some people to cut calories or naturally just eat fewer calories than they otherwise would.
They are recommended only as a short term fix. Any more than taking on a low carb diet for a few weeks is bad. Why do you think that the Atkins diet has been so controversial? Carbs are not bad. The body needs them for energy.
"You see, most of us require some level of carbohydrates to function at our best over the long term. Sure, we can cut carbs temporarily if we need to lose weight quickly. But for most of us, keeping carbs too low for too long can have disastrous consequences. This is especially true for those of us who work out. If you’re sedentary, your carb needs are lower. So you might be able to get away with more restriction.
In other words: Your metabolism might slow, your stress hormones go up and your muscle-building hormones go down.
Copied and pasted from http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets
"An earlier study has already highlighted the fact that long-term carbohydrate restriction can increase the risk of osteoporosis, with attendant risks of bone fractures, spinal collapse and nerve damage. What-is-more, although in a few studies it has been shown to improve certain cardiac risk factors, a low-carbohydrate diet limits the intake of a wide range of plant-derived chemicals, such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and antioxidants, that may help prevent heart disease, cancer, and other disorders. Rather cancelling out any claimed benefits, wouldn't you say"
Copied and pasted from http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/diet/atkins_diet/medical_report.htm
----
So please tell me again what is so funny, except for how wrong you are?
"generally talking through your hat"
Did you just completely ignore the fact that these are quotes from the professsionals, and not myself for your own self-purpose?
There wouldn't be a keto group on MFP if what you're saying is true. We'd all be dead.
There are some that have been doing it for YEARS and have great health and are very active.
Also, NO they are not recommended for short term fixes. Often people with diabetes and PCOS use low carb dieting to not only lose weight but to improve their health. There are people with diabetes that are able to reduce the need for meds through their diet. Are you saying once the diabetes are under control they should just go back to a more traditional, higher carb diet?
I have a Type 1 child and have seen an improvement in control with a lower than average carb intake. However there is a world of difference between a Low carb and a ketogenic diet. IMO Being ketognic for a short time or vegetarian for a short time can be very therapeutic. In my experience when first starting either protocol I feel great but after 3 to 4 weeks the extra energy and healthful feeling diminishes. So what I do now is consume as an omnivore nearly all the time with an occasional ketogenic or vegetarian stint. To each his own!0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Ok, so I am so confused as to what to do. I have been reading a lot on weightloss. Whiles I have found low carb gives you quicker weightloss and good for diabetics, I find it so hard to stick to a low carb diet such as atkins or say around 20grams of carbs a day as a lifestyle. so my question is can I eat regular things but try to watch my carbs and still loose weight or do I have to choose one low carb or calorie counting?
Both work well!
Both have success stories and both have people who vow that doing them was the worst experience of their lives and to steer clear.
The best thing to do is to flip a coin - heads low carb, tails calorie counting. Which ever it lands on try that diet (and give it your all) for 30 days. If at the end of 30 days its comfortable for you and you are starting to see results - stick with.
If at the end of the 30 days its really not for you, then switch and try the other one for 30 days.
I would suggest that going to the extremes (i.e. being neurotic about every ounce of food you weight, or eating barely no carbs) may make the experience less than comfortable.
For a decent low carb intake, somewhere around 100g a day is more than sufficient to get all your Micros Nutrients from mainly veg and some fruit.
Give em a try (both are healthy) - so what have you got you to lose!
Good luck
Spot on.
I do keto, but 50-100g is probably where I'll settle after I reach my goal. Each has their benefits. But it's not necessary to restrict your carbs to keto level if it doesn't work well for you. And that's what the key is, finding your personal sweet spot (sustainability + weight loss). Making yourself miserable is ridiculous. So don't. I'm happy with 20g net right now. I feel good and am healthy. Who's to say someone else won't feel just as good and be just as happy doing something else? It won't be me. Because there is more than one way to get where you are going. Keep trying things until you find something you are comfortable with.Thank you all again for your input. I truly appreciate the support.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions