Low carb dieters!
Options
Replies
-
You are most likely losing water...jennibean40 wrote: »Let me rephrase.. i dont keep track of calories. Any diet will restrict calories to some degree. If you go low carb.. you automatically cut out calorie high foods. So yes your calorie count goes down. But say i consume 1200 calories a day that include high carbs... my weight loss slows (practically stops) as compared to a 1200 calorie diet that is low in carbs and i lose .5-.6 lbs a day. The only difference is the carb count. Therefore the restriction of carbs is what helps the weight come off.
0 -
@lcooper327 your right they arent the same exclusively, but they are connected.. lower fat=lower calories. Just like lower carb=lower calories. The point is they both restricted calories but the low carb group experienced better weight loss and health benefits. Therefore, valid.0
-
jennibean40 wrote: »Im so glad low calorie dieting works for you dear. @ndj1979
You are low calorie dieting... it's kinda funny you don't see it...
0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »@lcooper327 your right they arent the same exclusively, but they are connected.. lower fat=lower calories. Just like lower carb=lower calories. The point is they both restricted calories but the low carb group experienced better weight loss and health benefits. Therefore, valid.
The study you kept posting said that calories were not controlled in the study, so there's no way to know if the people on the low fat diet were eating at a deficit.
Low fat does not automatically mean low calorie. Fat is satiating, so if you're not getting enough fat, you are likely hungry more. If you're not controlling calories, you can easily overeat if you're not getting enough fat.0 -
Incorrect...jennibean40 wrote: »Not at all.. i just know my results. And there are multiple studies, diets, and doctors who agree low carb diets can be more effective than low calorie diets.
Not if you are in a calorie surplus.jennibean40 wrote: »I could maintain my carb count and increase my calorie count.. and continue to lose weight at the level i have been.
Not even sure what you are trying to say here...jennibean40 wrote: »If you do some research you will find that the clean eating diets, while not marketed as low carb.. boast a MUCH lower carb count than a basic low calorie diet. It comes down to the foods you choose.
No, no and no...jennibean40 wrote: »Most carbs are bad for your body.0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »I cant even with you right now. Im sorry you are unhappy i disagree with you. Its simply this...
I DID do a low calorie diet only on and off for many years. With very little weight loss.
I did low carb (which incidently kept me at the same low level of calories) and lost up to 7lbs a week.
So you are telling me, in all the years i tried low calorie before, when i just so happen to start low carb... the calorie defecit is the only contributing factor?
Why then.. when i was simply on a reg carb low cal, did i not lose 7lbs in a week?
Please explain, oh enlightened one, keeper of all truths to the universe.
didn't you admit that you did not track calories? So if you were not tracking calories, logging all your food, weighing your food then more than likely you are not in as great a calorie deficit as you thought, or were not in one at all.
Once you switched to restricted all carbs, that eliminated most of the calorie dense foods in your diet and put you into a calorie deficit.
I know that you think you are some special person that lives outside of the boundaries of math and physics, but, I hate to break it to you, you are not.
Calories In VS Calories Out applies to all of us, period.0 -
If you are losing 7lbs a week you are losing mostly muscle...jennibean40 wrote: »I did low carb (which incidently kept me at the same low level of calories) and lost up to 7lbs a week.
0 -
For me eating fairly low carb means blood sugar control which equates, for me, weight loss. And low carb doesn't mean unhealthy I eat plenty of veggies and lean protein.
0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »I cant even with you right now. Im sorry you are unhappy i disagree with you. Its simply this...
I DID do a low calorie diet only on and off for many years. With very little weight loss.
I did low carb (which incidently kept me at the same low level of calories) and lost up to 7lbs a week.
So you are telling me, in all the years i tried low calorie before, when i just so happen to start low carb... the calorie defecit is the only contributing factor?
Why then.. when i was simply on a reg carb low cal, did i not lose 7lbs in a week?
Please explain, oh enlightened one, keeper of all truths to the universe.
didn't you admit that you did not track calories? So if you were not tracking calories, logging all your food, weighing your food then more than likely you are not in as great a calorie deficit as you thought, or were not in one at all.
Once you switched to restricted all carbs, that eliminated most of the calorie dense foods in your diet and put you into a calorie deficit.
I know that you think you are some special person that lives outside of the boundaries of math and physics, but, I hate to break it to you, you are not.
Calories In VS Calories Out applies to all of us, period.
She experienced the whoosh of water weight that one gets at the beginning of a low carb diet, so apparently that means it works better than a calorie deficit.
Also, earlier she mentioned that she only lost about 3 lbs a month when she was counting calories alone. Considering she doesn't have much weight to lose, 3 lbs/month is not bad. I'll bet if she had tightened up her logging and weighed everything she could've lost a pound or two more that month.
Once the weight loss stabilizes on low carb, she will likely lose weight at a similar rate that she would have by counting calories. The only thing is, now, if she reintroduces carbs back into her diet, the water weight will come back and that will reaffirm her belief that low carb is the only thing that works for her.0 -
2. keto/low carb is "superior" for fat loss/weight loss. No, it is not.
except when it is, like in http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2007-0692 (offered above to demonstrate the opposite) where the lower carb weight loss was greater "weight loss was correspondingly greater (6.3 ± 2.2 vs. 4.4 ± 2.6 kg in 4 wk, P < 0.01)" aka 1 lb/week greater. Both diets were restricted carbohydrate compared to baseline. More restricted was better for weight loss.
But not fat loss
" However, loss of fat mass was similar on the HF-LC and MF-MC diets in both studies."
Weird how that was left out
"Similar" yet greater loss of fat mass on HF-LC. The small sample size & short duration probably prevented statistical significance.
1.3 kg more fat loss on average on the ad-lib HFLC and 0.9 kg more on the controlled intake HFLC - I'd take that in 4 weeks given the choice. 420 and 290 cals/day equivalent.
Weird how the numbers were missed out.
interesting, considering the high protein study I posted early came up with different results..
I guess we can all agree to say the "jury is out"....0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »jennibean40 wrote: »I cant even with you right now. Im sorry you are unhappy i disagree with you. Its simply this...
I DID do a low calorie diet only on and off for many years. With very little weight loss.
I did low carb (which incidently kept me at the same low level of calories) and lost up to 7lbs a week.
So you are telling me, in all the years i tried low calorie before, when i just so happen to start low carb... the calorie defecit is the only contributing factor?
Why then.. when i was simply on a reg carb low cal, did i not lose 7lbs in a week?
Please explain, oh enlightened one, keeper of all truths to the universe.
didn't you admit that you did not track calories? So if you were not tracking calories, logging all your food, weighing your food then more than likely you are not in as great a calorie deficit as you thought, or were not in one at all.
Once you switched to restricted all carbs, that eliminated most of the calorie dense foods in your diet and put you into a calorie deficit.
I know that you think you are some special person that lives outside of the boundaries of math and physics, but, I hate to break it to you, you are not.
Calories In VS Calories Out applies to all of us, period.
She experienced the whoosh of water weight that one gets at the beginning of a low carb diet, so apparently that means it works better than a calorie deficit.
Also, earlier she mentioned that she only lost about 3 lbs a month when she was counting calories alone. Considering she doesn't have much weight to lose, 3 lbs/month is not bad. I'll bet if she had tightened up her logging and weighed everything she could've lost a pound or two more that month.
Once the weight loss stabilizes on low carb, she will likely lose weight at a similar rate that she would have by counting calories. The only thing is, now, if she reintroduces carbs back into her diet, the water weight will come back and that will reaffirm her belief that low carb is the only thing that works for her.
IDK ..
this thread is now officially all over the place...
OP said does not count calories or restrict them, then she does, and now she is saying she doesn't ...
me confused...0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »jennibean40 wrote: »I cant even with you right now. Im sorry you are unhappy i disagree with you. Its simply this...
I DID do a low calorie diet only on and off for many years. With very little weight loss.
I did low carb (which incidently kept me at the same low level of calories) and lost up to 7lbs a week.
So you are telling me, in all the years i tried low calorie before, when i just so happen to start low carb... the calorie defecit is the only contributing factor?
Why then.. when i was simply on a reg carb low cal, did i not lose 7lbs in a week?
Please explain, oh enlightened one, keeper of all truths to the universe.
didn't you admit that you did not track calories? So if you were not tracking calories, logging all your food, weighing your food then more than likely you are not in as great a calorie deficit as you thought, or were not in one at all.
Once you switched to restricted all carbs, that eliminated most of the calorie dense foods in your diet and put you into a calorie deficit.
I know that you think you are some special person that lives outside of the boundaries of math and physics, but, I hate to break it to you, you are not.
Calories In VS Calories Out applies to all of us, period.
She experienced the whoosh of water weight that one gets at the beginning of a low carb diet, so apparently that means it works better than a calorie deficit.
Also, earlier she mentioned that she only lost about 3 lbs a month when she was counting calories alone. Considering she doesn't have much weight to lose, 3 lbs/month is not bad. I'll bet if she had tightened up her logging and weighed everything she could've lost a pound or two more that month.
Once the weight loss stabilizes on low carb, she will likely lose weight at a similar rate that she would have by counting calories. The only thing is, now, if she reintroduces carbs back into her diet, the water weight will come back and that will reaffirm her belief that low carb is the only thing that works for her.
IDK ..
this thread is now officially all over the place...
OP said does not count calories or restrict them, then she does, and now she is saying she doesn't ...
me confused...
I am too, really. Trying to make sense of it has been hard.
I need a cookie.0 -
All the low-carbers sound like they're selling something.0
-
All the low-carbers sound like they're selling something.
Jimmy Moore's Low Carb Cruises
http://www.lowcarbcruiseinfo.com/0 -
*0
-
I have to do gluten free so I've largely been following a paleo diet and my MFP dietary settings are the keto settings. I make sure I eat a lot of protein and veggies and watch my carb and sugar intake - so far it's working for me as I've lost a little over 30 pounds. It's happening pretty slowly, but I'd rather a slow weight loss than a fast one since I have so much to lose.0
-
Every time someone tries to discuss low carb diets I see certain people jump in like clockwork.
Can't speak for everyone but my take is:
- Low carb diets do seem to be effective for a quicker weight loss. Whether that is due to lower calories I am not sure, as replacing carbs with fat will eat up the calories fast.
- Myself, I don't want to go too low carb as I ultimately believe in a balanced diet, but since I reduced my carb calories to below 40% and was stricter with sugar intake I have lost faster from a smaller deficit than in the past. Anecdotal, but works for me.
- The water weight argument is a straw man IMO. You may lose a couple of kg initially from carrying less water, but you can't keep losing water. After that initial water loss you will lose weight like anyone else, be that fat or muscle mass.
Good luck to those who have found something that works for them, and keep sharing!0 -
You are assuming the energy out side of CICO remains the same...Paul_Collyer wrote: »- Myself, I don't want to go too low carb as I ultimately believe in a balanced diet, but since I reduced my carb calories to below 40% and was stricter with sugar intake I have lost faster from a smaller deficit than in the past. Anecdotal, but works for me.
True, after initial water loss you will lose like everyone else. That said, that initial water loss that happens so quickly is what gets most people hooked on low carb as being... better.Paul_Collyer wrote: »- The water weight argument is a straw man IMO. You may lose a couple of kg initially from carrying less water, but you can't keep losing water. After that initial water loss you will lose weight like anyone else, be that fat or muscle mass.
0 -
Paul_Collyer wrote: »Every time someone tries to discuss low carb diets I see certain people jump in like clockwork.
Can't speak for everyone but my take is:
- Low carb diets do seem to be effective for a quicker weight loss. Whether that is due to lower calories I am not sure, as replacing carbs with fat will eat up the calories fast.
- Myself, I don't want to go too low carb as I ultimately believe in a balanced diet, but since I reduced my carb calories to below 40% and was stricter with sugar intake I have lost faster from a smaller deficit than in the past. Anecdotal, but works for me.
- The water weight argument is a straw man IMO. You may lose a couple of kg initially from carrying less water, but you can't keep losing water. After that initial water loss you will lose weight like anyone else, be that fat or muscle mass.
Good luck to those who have found something that works for them, and keep sharing!
disagree with the bolded parts...
there were studies going back and forth early saying yes they do, and no they don't...so that has yet to be determined.
the only reason anyone jumped in is when OP said that she loses weight by restricting carbs and not be restricting calories...that is the only reason this thread has blown up.
low carb is low calorie....
me personally, I could not function on low carb because my gym performance would go in the tank ...however, I know people who do it and if that is what they want to do then fine. However, don't tell me that one method of calorie restriction is superior to another OR that the only way that X person can lose weight is via reducing carbs, but not reducing calories...that is just pseudoscience...0
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
- 393 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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions