Low carb dieters!
Options
Replies
-
I guess in that context you would be right. In order to balance something on one end, something else needs to be restricted on the other...tennisdude2004 wrote: »
If the goal is fat loss then yes all are restrictive. If the goal is maintenance or a bulk, IIFYM and moderation are not. Low carb still would be...tennisdude2004 wrote: »So we are in agreement, low carb, moderation, IIFYM are all restricting diets.
Not saying that it is a good or bad thing, just that it is...
Why would it be if you are eating low carb in a surplus.
You are still eating carbs, just a higher volume of fat. By that definition whatever macro split you have you are restricting something. Unless your split is 33.333% across the board.
I suppose my issue is the context of the word restriction.
Technically people eating and being successful on a low carb are restricting their carbs in the volume they eat, but not restricting the food they want to eat, so I guess there is no emotional restriction.
I suppose I can only speak for myself (as is the case for all of us). I don't often crave carbs and most days I have to consciously include them (especially in the form of fruit and veg).
I think the undertone of the word 'restriction' from most of the anti low carbers is - depriving and that's my issue, because in my case that's just plain wrong.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
Oh, I'm not disputing anything about how it works for you. I'm questioning the words you use and how helpful it might be to someone reading.
Saying that you can "eat until you're full" is a nebulous concept that doesn't explain HOW low carbing works to make you lose weight. To an emotional eater, it sounds like a magic ticket for weight loss.
Like I said, it doesn't work for everyone - nothing does.
I very much doubt anyone who loves their carbs or has an emotional attachment to that type of food would be successful long term on low carb.
Just like million and millions will not be successful on calorie counting or just eating in moderation.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
Right. And some of the low carb WK's wonder why some of us have issue with low-carbers? It's because of word games like this.
This is MFP, if you've got more than 1000 posts, then you are one of the people definitely playing the semantics game.
There is absolutely no logic involved in what you just typed.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
If you do not require, or want as many calories in your diet - is that restricting???
By your definition everything we do is restricting something.
If I eat 10,000 I'm restricting calories because I haven't eaten 10,001.
Surely if you stop eating when you've had enough, then you're not restricting.
I agree you are controlling your calories, but restricting (I don't think so).
I am done playing word games with you.
if you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting/controlling/eliminating something so that you eat less.
the fact that you are even arguing this is dumb
Go get a thesaurus.
I've already agreed with you. Whats your issue?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
Oh, I'm not disputing anything about how it works for you. I'm questioning the words you use and how helpful it might be to someone reading.
Saying that you can "eat until you're full" is a nebulous concept that doesn't explain HOW low carbing works to make you lose weight. To an emotional eater, it sounds like a magic ticket for weight loss.
Like I said, it doesn't work for everyone - nothing does.
I very much doubt anyone who loves their carbs or has an emotional attachment to that type of food would be successful long term on low carb.
Just like million and millions will not be successful on calorie counting or just eating in moderation.
Realistically, someone with emotional eating issues won't be successful on anything until they first work out those emotional eating issues. Restricting that to one single WOE is a bit of a strawman in the first place. It's like saying an alcoholic won't be successful drinking just a little beer, while ignoring they also won't be successful drinking a little vodka, pinot noir or mouthwash, either.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
Oh, I'm not disputing anything about how it works for you. I'm questioning the words you use and how helpful it might be to someone reading.
Saying that you can "eat until you're full" is a nebulous concept that doesn't explain HOW low carbing works to make you lose weight. To an emotional eater, it sounds like a magic ticket for weight loss.
Like I said, it doesn't work for everyone - nothing does.
I very much doubt anyone who loves their carbs or has an emotional attachment to that type of food would be successful long term on low carb.
Just like million and millions will not be successful on calorie counting or just eating in moderation.
Realistically, someone with emotional eating issues won't be successful on anything until they first work out those emotional eating issues. Restricting that to one single WOE is a bit of a strawman in the first place. It's like saying an alcoholic won't be successful drinking just a little beer, while ignoring they also won't be successful drinking a little vodka, pinot noir or mouthwash, either.
I completely agree.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
Oh, I'm not disputing anything about how it works for you. I'm questioning the words you use and how helpful it might be to someone reading.
Saying that you can "eat until you're full" is a nebulous concept that doesn't explain HOW low carbing works to make you lose weight. To an emotional eater, it sounds like a magic ticket for weight loss.
Like I said, it doesn't work for everyone - nothing does.
I very much doubt anyone who loves their carbs or has an emotional attachment to that type of food would be successful long term on low carb.
Just like million and millions will not be successful on calorie counting or just eating in moderation.
You are missing my point, but it's not worth playing word games with you.
I ate low carb for 7 years without cheating. A hunk of that time was paleo, without dairy. And this was old school paleo, which was low carb.
I didn't have an "emotional attachment" to carbs.
I was an emotional eater who ate past satiety. It didn't matter what kind of food I was eating. Ketosis wasn't a magic bullet for appetite suppression.
ALL I was told going into low carbing was that I needed to cut carbs and to eat until I felt full. My "full feeler" was broken due to emotional issues and ketosis won't fix those.
Explanations of the mechanism of low carbing need to be accompanied by the acknowledgement that ketosis restricts appetite to the point that a caloric deficit is achieved, otherwise they are not portraying a true picture.
0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »A 500 calorie diet is totally unacceptable for me... haha! I enjoy food. Also doesnt such a radical restriction of calories force your body to burn muscle as well as fat? Kind of counterproductive...
say what..??
500 calorie deficit is extreme??? that is one pound a week loss which is considered "normal weight loss"..
how do you think you lost weight on keto? The weight did not magically disappear. You were consuming less than you were burning - CICO = calories in vs calories out…
I think she thought you meant eating 500 calories a day....
0 -
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. I could maintain my carb count and increase my calorie count.. and continue to lose weight at the level i have been. 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. Most carbs are bad for your body. Yes you need some carbs. This is known. And in response to "hard to maintain" i disagree... not any harder than a low calorie dieter who wants icecream. There is a vast array of foods you can eat and on a maintenance low carb diet you can still consume many regular foods. Ps every diet sheds water weight at first.
You will find nothing but haters and trash talkers no matter how much research you provide them with. I know a gentleman who weighed 600 pounds less than 6 months ago, but since starting aketo diet he has lost over a 150 pounds.......but he must be doing it wrong...because he doesnt count calories.. I guess he shouldnt be losing any weight...-1 -
jennibean40 wrote: »According to my research ketosis (the state the body enters during low carb diets) burns almost solely body fat... and since i dont restrict calories i still maintain normal energy and function levels. Have you had different experiences?
You're burning more DIETARY fat.
http://sigmanutrition.com/eat-more-fat-burn-more-fat-myth-magic-or-metabolic-advantage/
^ op you really need to read this article…it explains the concept very well….
The thing is is there is research that says otherwise as well...you can find research to support nearly any opinion...seriously.0 -
jenjay8045 wrote: »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. I could maintain my carb count and increase my calorie count.. and continue to lose weight at the level i have been. 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. Most carbs are bad for your body. Yes you need some carbs. This is known. And in response to "hard to maintain" i disagree... not any harder than a low calorie dieter who wants icecream. There is a vast array of foods you can eat and on a maintenance low carb diet you can still consume many regular foods. Ps every diet sheds water weight at first.
You will find nothing but haters and trash talkers no matter how much research you provide them with. I know a gentleman who weighed 600 pounds less than 6 months ago, but since starting aketo diet he has lost over a 150 pounds.......but he must be doing it wrong...because he doesnt count calories.. I guess he shouldnt be losing any weight...
Yes, that's exactly what everyone here is saying.
Talk about a straw man argument. *SMH*0 -
jenjay8045 wrote: »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. I could maintain my carb count and increase my calorie count.. and continue to lose weight at the level i have been. 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. Most carbs are bad for your body. Yes you need some carbs. This is known. And in response to "hard to maintain" i disagree... not any harder than a low calorie dieter who wants icecream. There is a vast array of foods you can eat and on a maintenance low carb diet you can still consume many regular foods. Ps every diet sheds water weight at first.
You will find nothing but haters and trash talkers no matter how much research you provide them with. I know a gentleman who weighed 600 pounds less than 6 months ago, but since starting aketo diet he has lost over a 150 pounds.......but he must be doing it wrong...because he doesnt count calories.. I guess he shouldnt be losing any weight...
Yes, that's exactly what everyone here is saying.
Talk about a straw man argument. *SMH*
The OP said that she eats the same amount of calories high carb as low carb and could not lose weight until she went low carb. People said that was not true. How many calories you eat determine how much weight you lose or gain, and what kind of food you eat does not matter for weight loss beyond personal preference and what keeps you satiated (which would allow you to remain in a deficit).
Then craziness happened.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
If you do not require, or want as many calories in your diet - is that restricting???
By your definition everything we do is restricting something.
If I eat 10,000 I'm restricting calories because I haven't eaten 10,001.
Surely if you stop eating when you've had enough, then you're not restricting.
I agree you are controlling your calories, but restricting (I don't think so).
I am done playing word games with you.
if you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting/controlling/eliminating something so that you eat less.
the fact that you are even arguing this is dumb
Go get a thesaurus.
I've already agreed with you. Whats your issue?
yes we agree.
first time in 15,000 posts..
let this never happen again.0 -
jenjay8045 wrote: »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. I could maintain my carb count and increase my calorie count.. and continue to lose weight at the level i have been. 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. Most carbs are bad for your body. Yes you need some carbs. This is known. And in response to "hard to maintain" i disagree... not any harder than a low calorie dieter who wants icecream. There is a vast array of foods you can eat and on a maintenance low carb diet you can still consume many regular foods. Ps every diet sheds water weight at first.
You will find nothing but haters and trash talkers no matter how much research you provide them with. I know a gentleman who weighed 600 pounds less than 6 months ago, but since starting aketo diet he has lost over a 150 pounds.......but he must be doing it wrong...because he doesnt count calories.. I guess he shouldnt be losing any weight...
question ..
is he in a calorie deficit; yes or no?
for the millionth time no one is bashing keto ...we are simply saying that it is a form of calorie restriction that that it is not superior to any other low calorie diet...< or do you disagree???0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
now you are just playing a semantic game...
if you are low carbing and losing weight then you are in a calorie deficit because you have restricted calories. In this instance, you have chosen to restrict carbs to a minimal amount in order to get into a deficit.
If you do not require, or want as many calories in your diet - is that restricting???
By your definition everything we do is restricting something.
If I eat 10,000 I'm restricting calories because I haven't eaten 10,001.
Surely if you stop eating when you've had enough, then you're not restricting.
I agree you are controlling your calories, but restricting (I don't think so).
I am done playing word games with you.
if you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting/controlling/eliminating something so that you eat less.
the fact that you are even arguing this is dumb
Go get a thesaurus.
I've already agreed with you. Whats your issue?
yes we agree.
first time in 15,000 posts..
let this never happen again.
Deal
0 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
Oh, I'm not disputing anything about how it works for you. I'm questioning the words you use and how helpful it might be to someone reading.
Saying that you can "eat until you're full" is a nebulous concept that doesn't explain HOW low carbing works to make you lose weight. To an emotional eater, it sounds like a magic ticket for weight loss.
Like I said, it doesn't work for everyone - nothing does.
I very much doubt anyone who loves their carbs or has an emotional attachment to that type of food would be successful long term on low carb.
Just like million and millions will not be successful on calorie counting or just eating in moderation.
You are missing my point, but it's not worth playing word games with you.
I ate low carb for 7 years without cheating. A hunk of that time was paleo, without dairy. And this was old school paleo, which was low carb.
I didn't have an "emotional attachment" to carbs.
I was an emotional eater who ate past satiety. It didn't matter what kind of food I was eating. Ketosis wasn't a magic bullet for appetite suppression.
ALL I was told going into low carbing was that I needed to cut carbs and to eat until I felt full. My "full feeler" was broken due to emotional issues and ketosis won't fix those.
Explanations of the mechanism of low carbing need to be accompanied by the acknowledgement that ketosis restricts appetite to the point that a caloric deficit is achieved, otherwise they are not portraying a true picture.
I am not in anyway disputing that emotional eaters will find 'everything' difficult.
As I said I can only explain how it works for me.
Also I would say that ketosis is not an essential requirement for low carb to be successful. I sometimes dip into keto but very rarely. I would think I hit around 80 - 120g of carbs a day.
Also I'm not playing word games, I'm just pointing out that for a lot of low carbers, not eating high carbs is a struggle or an emotional or physical depravity.
We're just not that into carbs!0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
Oh, I'm not disputing anything about how it works for you. I'm questioning the words you use and how helpful it might be to someone reading.
Saying that you can "eat until you're full" is a nebulous concept that doesn't explain HOW low carbing works to make you lose weight. To an emotional eater, it sounds like a magic ticket for weight loss.
Like I said, it doesn't work for everyone - nothing does.
I very much doubt anyone who loves their carbs or has an emotional attachment to that type of food would be successful long term on low carb.
Just like million and millions will not be successful on calorie counting or just eating in moderation.
You are missing my point, but it's not worth playing word games with you.
I ate low carb for 7 years without cheating. A hunk of that time was paleo, without dairy. And this was old school paleo, which was low carb.
I didn't have an "emotional attachment" to carbs.
I was an emotional eater who ate past satiety. It didn't matter what kind of food I was eating. Ketosis wasn't a magic bullet for appetite suppression.
ALL I was told going into low carbing was that I needed to cut carbs and to eat until I felt full. My "full feeler" was broken due to emotional issues and ketosis won't fix those.
Explanations of the mechanism of low carbing need to be accompanied by the acknowledgement that ketosis restricts appetite to the point that a caloric deficit is achieved, otherwise they are not portraying a true picture.
I am not in anyway disputing that emotional eaters will find 'everything' difficult.
As I said I can only explain how it works for me.
Also I would say that ketosis is not an essential requirement for low carb to be successful. I sometimes dip into keto but very rarely. I would think I hit around 80 - 120g of carbs a day.
Also I'm not playing word games, I'm just pointing out that for a lot of low carbers, not eating high carbs is a struggle or an emotional or physical depravity.
We're just not that into carbs!
Nice try.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
low carb/keto is just a tool for getting yourself in a calorie deficit…
you could accomplish the same with just a 500 calorie per day deficit...
The post you replied to clearly stated that calories were not being restricted. Try reading the entire post, word for word... Eventually you'll realize that low carb diets does not mean that calories are being restricted, or at least you'll start replying to the entire message, not just the parts you want to bash.
so you are saying that you can do low carb, eat in a calorie surplus, and lose weight???
Restricting = Put a limit on / deprive.
If on a low carb diet you can eat till you are full and still be in a calorie deficit, then by the very definition of restriction - you are not restricting you calories.
but you are sill in a calorie deficit, yes?
Absolutely - that's the only way to lose weight.
But if you are eating all the food you want - you're not restricting calories.
YOU'RE not restricting calories, but the appetite suppressing effect of ketosis is, right?
The thing is, that appetite suppressing thing doesn't work for people who are emotional eaters. This is my beef with simplistic explanations of low carbing that state "eat all you want". Saying that to an emotional eater is not a good idea. They will eat past the feeling of fullness and past a caloric deficit.
Been there, done that. Didn't lose that much weight on low carb.
It's not that low carb can't be effective, but how it's talked about in general terms could be clearer.
Yes but It works for me and that's exactly how it works for me, I have no other explanation. Therefore it is factual and it is correct.
I'm not sure I've seen a post saying it works for everyone!!!!
Sorry if it doesn't work for you, that's life. I can't get my tongue to touch the tip of my nose, we've all got *kitten* to deal with.
Oh, I'm not disputing anything about how it works for you. I'm questioning the words you use and how helpful it might be to someone reading.
Saying that you can "eat until you're full" is a nebulous concept that doesn't explain HOW low carbing works to make you lose weight. To an emotional eater, it sounds like a magic ticket for weight loss.
Like I said, it doesn't work for everyone - nothing does.
I very much doubt anyone who loves their carbs or has an emotional attachment to that type of food would be successful long term on low carb.
Just like million and millions will not be successful on calorie counting or just eating in moderation.
You are missing my point, but it's not worth playing word games with you.
I ate low carb for 7 years without cheating. A hunk of that time was paleo, without dairy. And this was old school paleo, which was low carb.
I didn't have an "emotional attachment" to carbs.
I was an emotional eater who ate past satiety. It didn't matter what kind of food I was eating. Ketosis wasn't a magic bullet for appetite suppression.
ALL I was told going into low carbing was that I needed to cut carbs and to eat until I felt full. My "full feeler" was broken due to emotional issues and ketosis won't fix those.
Explanations of the mechanism of low carbing need to be accompanied by the acknowledgement that ketosis restricts appetite to the point that a caloric deficit is achieved, otherwise they are not portraying a true picture.
I am not in anyway disputing that emotional eaters will find 'everything' difficult.
As I said I can only explain how it works for me.
Also I would say that ketosis is not an essential requirement for low carb to be successful. I sometimes dip into keto but very rarely. I would think I hit around 80 - 120g of carbs a day.
Also I'm not playing word games, I'm just pointing out that for a lot of low carbers, not eating high carbs is a struggle or an emotional or physical depravity.
We're just not that into carbs!
Nice try.
Nice try?
If there's one thing I'm certain of - I don't try.
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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions