why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Also, why do you insist people are "confused?" Keto food is generally more calorie dense, therefore lower volume, not the other way around. You need a lot of broccoli to match the calories in a filet with a pat of butter on top. People get to eat til they're full, that's the difference, it has nothing to do with volume. Higher fat with adequate protein makes someone feel full faster than higher carb.
So you're saying that I can eat 2000 calories worth of fish, fried in fat if I wanted to and I'll lose weight?
No, I'm saying you'd get full at 1400 and put the other 600 in the fridge (or possibly feed it to ducks, if it's from McDonald's)1 -
It's still that same terminology issue you had in the other thread. You equate deficit to proactively restricting calories. Other people equate deficit to less calories, whether you put effort into it or not.
In other words, with your definition, someone who is done eating for the day, and their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and has to walk 3 miles before they get a cell signal has restricted their calories for the day. Others would say they were at a deficit, but it wasn't something they set out to do. Similarly, someone who has the flu and can't keep any food down for 3 days is in a deficit, you insist they are "restricting," where others would say they're at a deficit without trying. I'f I'm broke, don't get paid til Friday, and have nothing to live on but 2 packs of ramen and a bottle of ketchup, that's not actively restricting, but it's definitely a deficit.
The other hot button phrase people keep twisting is "eat all you want," which does not and has never meant "eat everything in the kitchen" or "eat like it's Thanksgiving." It means eat until satiety.
A subset of people on LC, especially on keto, naturally eat at a deficit by eating to satiety, and do not need to count calories or log their food. Some have been on it long enough, they don't even have to count carbs, similar to anyone else on maintenance 5+ years out who can accurately eyeball portion sizes. At the other extreme are people like me. As long as I'm in keto, I'm in a constant state of satiety. If I go a day or more without eating, I'll get shaky and dizzy, but I don't get the other signals that normally come with hunger like a growling stomach or feeling of emptiness. If I ate "to satiety" I simply wouldn't eat at all, so instead I eat a prescribed number of calories spread across the day, divided up into portions that don't make me feel uncomfortably full when I'm done. There is no universal truth that people on LC don't count calories, or that everyone on LC must count calories, any more than there's a universal rule that everyone who practices moderation must eat gelato every week. If you took a poll, I suspect you'd find, at least here, that most LC do count, because they are either working on weight loss or lifting or both. You'll find some who go without counting for a variety of reasons, they're on maintenance, or they're dealing with the aftermath of an ED, and not counting eases the pressure on them.
Aside from that you can get into the whole host of issues that change the CO portion of the CICO equation, but which seem to be inconvenient to your (generic you) arguments when you insist someone who didn't lose on carbs and did lose without carbs must have been eating too much. That's disingenuous, especially considering a large majority of people on LC have contributing medical issues (whether they feel like sharing them publicly or not). There are also plenty of people who have isolated a medical condition by trying it without intentionally trying to find one, and the results they get are the clues they and their doctor need to figure out that something was wrong all along. It's possible they weren't measuring, but it's also possible they're IR. Since nobody here is qualified to diagnose them, they really aren't qualified to insist they must be lying and it can't possibly be anything else, either.
A few other things to point out, since you started the conversation, even though I know OP is already familiar with them - LC does not mean no fruit or vegetables, unless you choose to. Most people choose to eat them. It doesn't mean no desserts or no treats or that you constantly feel deprived and tortured. The difference is your treats usually come in the form of prime rib and lobster instead of a Big Mac or a Hershey bar. When you eat chocolate, you eat good chocolate and appreciate it, every day if you want. Food will taste different, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than when you try something you loved when you were 6 and can't believe how disgusting it is now.
Perhaps the LC threads wouldn't be so quick to be hijacked if people quit treating it like a cult, and just acknowledged that it will get its share of misinformed newbies like every other WOE represented on this board. It's not a reason to shout them down like they killed your kitten when they use a word you disagree with.
i am just going to reply to the bolded part for now.
If you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting something. In your case, you choose to restrict carbs, which puts you into ketosis, which puts you in a calorie deficit. In my case, I do not restrict any foods groups; however, when cutting I do restrict calories so that I am in a deficit.
so are you saying that less calories does not equal restriction? I guess people don't like the word restriction because it has a negative connotation but if you are in a deficit that is what you are doing ….
I don't think it's negative, only that it implies an action. I restrict carbs, but that does not equate to a calorie deficit. That's why I'm here in the first place. I threw a blood clot, got a nice vacation in the hospital, and spent the next 2 years basically not giving a damn because I was stoned out of my mind on painkillers and stressed out from not working. I was still in keto, that's the easy part. I was sedentary+ and no longer at a deficit (see the part above about how I don't get hunger signals on keto). In that time, I gained a lot of weight, some is lymphatic fluid, but at least half is plain fat.
If you want to expand on the other discussion going in that thread, you can also restrict carbs while intentionally gaining (the ketogains community), or restrict carb and stay at maintenance. Actively restricting carbs is not an action that guarantees a deficit, but a deficit is a natural possible side effect of restricting carbs and increasing satiety.
I agree that you could be at maintenance or a surplus via doing low carb; however, I am not sure that one would want to bulk on low carb ….
if you are restricting carbs and losing weight, you have to be in a deficit though, right?0 -
Bump for reading later.0
-
So, I DO believe in CICO, because it's a fact. However, lowER carb generally makes it easier to stick to calorie requirements (for most people who do it; not all. Worked for me when I did).
For me, by the way, lower carb meant like one piece of whole grain toast in the morning with my eggs, and then sweet potatoes or brown rice or pasta, if I was going to have them, for lunch and evening meals. I don't even like most fruit, so the only thing I cut out as far as veggie/fruit stuff goes is corn. Basically, it was a lot of veg, meat (I love meat - barbecued, grilled, sauteed, any which way, ate tons of that), fats, and those substitutions I mentioned. I cut out white bread, pasta, potatoes, & potato chips and hickory sticks, and any fast food that involved things like that. I don't really like cake and stuff like that either, so that wasn't a loss. I'd have a brownie or a piece of dark chocolate now and then. I did not keep any stuff that might tempt me in the house, and I mostly stuck to the rules (low GI), which were pretty simple to follow.
When I did it, the weight came off easily. I wasn't hungry, portion control was dead easy, not even work. I ate until I was full, and that was just enough to lose (50 lbs, by the way). I didn't get into fast food spirals in the way I did when I was relying on convenience food. Whereas when I ate a lot of convenience & fast food, my stomach would be technically full, but I'd still be hungry. I'd crave more and more of that stuff the more I ate it. And, I felt crappy. I'd often find myself lacking energy.
On the lower carb diet (which really meant just a lot more veg), I felt great. My energy levels were steadier. And it's not even like I had a problem before - I've never been metabolically abnormal - blood sugar tests have always been normal, everything fine.
Currently I'm eating moderate stuff, including occasional fast food and white carbs, but I've come to prefer e.g. whole grain bread, since I did that lower carb diet. And it got me into the habit of eating more veg.
So no, it's not the only way to lose, and it doesn't trump CICO (although I think it does help regulate hormones). But it makes sticking to CICO so much easier. For people who get cranky on or off certain foods, or who have cravings for particular foods, or have issues with self-control, I think it's great, even on a temporary basis. Because some of those good, health-serving habits (like eating more veg) stick.1 -
Lack of carbs makes me "mean" so my family won't play with me. No walks or bike rides. No game of Frisbee. So if I don't have some carbs my CO takes a hit. Nobody wants to be around a miserable person. But some people don't get crabby. But I do. Opps, sorry double posted. Those darn alcohol carbs!Carbs hinder weight loss because it reverses CICO even if you are eating at a deficit, and because you're mean.
0 -
It's still that same terminology issue you had in the other thread. You equate deficit to proactively restricting calories. Other people equate deficit to less calories, whether you put effort into it or not.
In other words, with your definition, someone who is done eating for the day, and their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and has to walk 3 miles before they get a cell signal has restricted their calories for the day. Others would say they were at a deficit, but it wasn't something they set out to do. Similarly, someone who has the flu and can't keep any food down for 3 days is in a deficit, you insist they are "restricting," where others would say they're at a deficit without trying. I'f I'm broke, don't get paid til Friday, and have nothing to live on but 2 packs of ramen and a bottle of ketchup, that's not actively restricting, but it's definitely a deficit.
The other hot button phrase people keep twisting is "eat all you want," which does not and has never meant "eat everything in the kitchen" or "eat like it's Thanksgiving." It means eat until satiety.
A subset of people on LC, especially on keto, naturally eat at a deficit by eating to satiety, and do not need to count calories or log their food. Some have been on it long enough, they don't even have to count carbs, similar to anyone else on maintenance 5+ years out who can accurately eyeball portion sizes. At the other extreme are people like me. As long as I'm in keto, I'm in a constant state of satiety. If I go a day or more without eating, I'll get shaky and dizzy, but I don't get the other signals that normally come with hunger like a growling stomach or feeling of emptiness. If I ate "to satiety" I simply wouldn't eat at all, so instead I eat a prescribed number of calories spread across the day, divided up into portions that don't make me feel uncomfortably full when I'm done. There is no universal truth that people on LC don't count calories, or that everyone on LC must count calories, any more than there's a universal rule that everyone who practices moderation must eat gelato every week. If you took a poll, I suspect you'd find, at least here, that most LC do count, because they are either working on weight loss or lifting or both. You'll find some who go without counting for a variety of reasons, they're on maintenance, or they're dealing with the aftermath of an ED, and not counting eases the pressure on them.
Aside from that you can get into the whole host of issues that change the CO portion of the CICO equation, but which seem to be inconvenient to your (generic you) arguments when you insist someone who didn't lose on carbs and did lose without carbs must have been eating too much. That's disingenuous, especially considering a large majority of people on LC have contributing medical issues (whether they feel like sharing them publicly or not). There are also plenty of people who have isolated a medical condition by trying it without intentionally trying to find one, and the results they get are the clues they and their doctor need to figure out that something was wrong all along. It's possible they weren't measuring, but it's also possible they're IR. Since nobody here is qualified to diagnose them, they really aren't qualified to insist they must be lying and it can't possibly be anything else, either.
A few other things to point out, since you started the conversation, even though I know OP is already familiar with them - LC does not mean no fruit or vegetables, unless you choose to. Most people choose to eat them. It doesn't mean no desserts or no treats or that you constantly feel deprived and tortured. The difference is your treats usually come in the form of prime rib and lobster instead of a Big Mac or a Hershey bar. When you eat chocolate, you eat good chocolate and appreciate it, every day if you want. Food will taste different, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than when you try something you loved when you were 6 and can't believe how disgusting it is now.
Perhaps the LC threads wouldn't be so quick to be hijacked if people quit treating it like a cult, and just acknowledged that it will get its share of misinformed newbies like every other WOE represented on this board. It's not a reason to shout them down like they killed your kitten when they use a word you disagree with.
i am just going to reply to the bolded part for now.
If you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting something. In your case, you choose to restrict carbs, which puts you into ketosis, which puts you in a calorie deficit. In my case, I do not restrict any foods groups; however, when cutting I do restrict calories so that I am in a deficit.
so are you saying that less calories does not equal restriction? I guess people don't like the word restriction because it has a negative connotation but if you are in a deficit that is what you are doing ….
I don't think it's negative, only that it implies an action. I restrict carbs, but that does not equate to a calorie deficit. That's why I'm here in the first place. I threw a blood clot, got a nice vacation in the hospital, and spent the next 2 years basically not giving a damn because I was stoned out of my mind on painkillers and stressed out from not working. I was still in keto, that's the easy part. I was sedentary+ and no longer at a deficit (see the part above about how I don't get hunger signals on keto). In that time, I gained a lot of weight, some is lymphatic fluid, but at least half is plain fat.
If you want to expand on the other discussion going in that thread, you can also restrict carbs while intentionally gaining (the ketogains community), or restrict carb and stay at maintenance. Actively restricting carbs is not an action that guarantees a deficit, but a deficit is a natural possible side effect of restricting carbs and increasing satiety.
I agree that you could be at maintenance or a surplus via doing low carb; however, I am not sure that one would want to bulk on low carb ….
if you are restricting carbs and losing weight, you have to be in a deficit though, right?
If you are losing weight, but that doesn't mean you're actually tracking and intentionally keeping a deficit. It's why not tracking is a slippery slope for those who are trying to lose, they'll lose a month, gain a week (the same normal thing that happens on any WOE), but since they have no log to examine, they don't know if it's water or too much salt or just a fluke.
To be clear here, I'm entirely in the you must track to lose, at least when you're still learning, but I understand why people get frustrated when they don't, and people mistake what they're saying to mean they eat at a surplus and lose.
0 -
So no, it's not the only way to lose, and it doesn't trump CICO (although I think it does help regulate hormones).
This is the issue for many on LCHF. There are stories upon stories of ppl who ate a SAD, say 1500 calories a day and exercised and didnt lose weight or gained. Then they ate 1500 calories a day and exercised but ate LCHF and they lost weight in the short and long terms. Insulin is a hormone, if you have high insulin like IR or hormonal weirdness like PCOS, hormones play a HUGE roll in how you process what you eat and the types of food you eat.
So 1500 is a deficit yes, but what you eat, for many, is more important that how much you eat when it comes to weightloss.0 -
I low-carb (20g gross/day max most days), but I suffer no delusions that CICO does not apply. I lost 80lbs pre-low-carb and another 60 since.
For me, it is a satiety issue. Getting most of my calories from fat and protein keeps me much happier than when I was getting a significant portion (30% roughly) from carbs.
No magic, just preference. I like to think of my way of eating as CICO's awesome sidekick, keeping it on track.0 -
Without having read the whole thread I'm going to guess that a lot of people do not distinguish between fat loss and a decrease in scale weight. You can lose weight via a decrease in water retained, food in your gut, glycogen, etc.
So while certain things (low carb, eating tons of veggies or fiber, decreasing sodium) can result in a decrease of scale weight, this is not the same thing as fat loss, which is what CICO addresses.0 -
It's still that same terminology issue you had in the other thread. You equate deficit to proactively restricting calories. Other people equate deficit to less calories, whether you put effort into it or not.
In other words, with your definition, someone who is done eating for the day, and their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and has to walk 3 miles before they get a cell signal has restricted their calories for the day. Others would say they were at a deficit, but it wasn't something they set out to do. Similarly, someone who has the flu and can't keep any food down for 3 days is in a deficit, you insist they are "restricting," where others would say they're at a deficit without trying. I'f I'm broke, don't get paid til Friday, and have nothing to live on but 2 packs of ramen and a bottle of ketchup, that's not actively restricting, but it's definitely a deficit.
The other hot button phrase people keep twisting is "eat all you want," which does not and has never meant "eat everything in the kitchen" or "eat like it's Thanksgiving." It means eat until satiety.
A subset of people on LC, especially on keto, naturally eat at a deficit by eating to satiety, and do not need to count calories or log their food. Some have been on it long enough, they don't even have to count carbs, similar to anyone else on maintenance 5+ years out who can accurately eyeball portion sizes. At the other extreme are people like me. As long as I'm in keto, I'm in a constant state of satiety. If I go a day or more without eating, I'll get shaky and dizzy, but I don't get the other signals that normally come with hunger like a growling stomach or feeling of emptiness. If I ate "to satiety" I simply wouldn't eat at all, so instead I eat a prescribed number of calories spread across the day, divided up into portions that don't make me feel uncomfortably full when I'm done. There is no universal truth that people on LC don't count calories, or that everyone on LC must count calories, any more than there's a universal rule that everyone who practices moderation must eat gelato every week. If you took a poll, I suspect you'd find, at least here, that most LC do count, because they are either working on weight loss or lifting or both. You'll find some who go without counting for a variety of reasons, they're on maintenance, or they're dealing with the aftermath of an ED, and not counting eases the pressure on them.
Aside from that you can get into the whole host of issues that change the CO portion of the CICO equation, but which seem to be inconvenient to your (generic you) arguments when you insist someone who didn't lose on carbs and did lose without carbs must have been eating too much. That's disingenuous, especially considering a large majority of people on LC have contributing medical issues (whether they feel like sharing them publicly or not). There are also plenty of people who have isolated a medical condition by trying it without intentionally trying to find one, and the results they get are the clues they and their doctor need to figure out that something was wrong all along. It's possible they weren't measuring, but it's also possible they're IR. Since nobody here is qualified to diagnose them, they really aren't qualified to insist they must be lying and it can't possibly be anything else, either.
A few other things to point out, since you started the conversation, even though I know OP is already familiar with them - LC does not mean no fruit or vegetables, unless you choose to. Most people choose to eat them. It doesn't mean no desserts or no treats or that you constantly feel deprived and tortured. The difference is your treats usually come in the form of prime rib and lobster instead of a Big Mac or a Hershey bar. When you eat chocolate, you eat good chocolate and appreciate it, every day if you want. Food will taste different, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's no different than when you try something you loved when you were 6 and can't believe how disgusting it is now.
Perhaps the LC threads wouldn't be so quick to be hijacked if people quit treating it like a cult, and just acknowledged that it will get its share of misinformed newbies like every other WOE represented on this board. It's not a reason to shout them down like they killed your kitten when they use a word you disagree with.
i am just going to reply to the bolded part for now.
If you are in a calorie deficit then you are restricting something. In your case, you choose to restrict carbs, which puts you into ketosis, which puts you in a calorie deficit. In my case, I do not restrict any foods groups; however, when cutting I do restrict calories so that I am in a deficit.
so are you saying that less calories does not equal restriction? I guess people don't like the word restriction because it has a negative connotation but if you are in a deficit that is what you are doing ….
I don't think it's negative, only that it implies an action. I restrict carbs, but that does not equate to a calorie deficit. That's why I'm here in the first place. I threw a blood clot, got a nice vacation in the hospital, and spent the next 2 years basically not giving a damn because I was stoned out of my mind on painkillers and stressed out from not working. I was still in keto, that's the easy part. I was sedentary+ and no longer at a deficit (see the part above about how I don't get hunger signals on keto). In that time, I gained a lot of weight, some is lymphatic fluid, but at least half is plain fat.
If you want to expand on the other discussion going in that thread, you can also restrict carbs while intentionally gaining (the ketogains community), or restrict carb and stay at maintenance. Actively restricting carbs is not an action that guarantees a deficit, but a deficit is a natural possible side effect of restricting carbs and increasing satiety.
I agree that you could be at maintenance or a surplus via doing low carb; however, I am not sure that one would want to bulk on low carb ….
if you are restricting carbs and losing weight, you have to be in a deficit though, right?
If you are losing weight, but that doesn't mean you're actually tracking and intentionally keeping a deficit. It's why not tracking is a slippery slope for those who are trying to lose, they'll lose a month, gain a week (the same normal thing that happens on any WOE), but since they have no log to examine, they don't know if it's water or too much salt or just a fluke.
To be clear here, I'm entirely in the you must track to lose, at least when you're still learning, but I understand why people get frustrated when they don't, and people mistake what they're saying to mean they eat at a surplus and lose.
I have never had an issue with people who say that they do not need to track to lose…
Like I said, I probably could not track and still gain/lose/maintain I just like having access to the data….
0 -
So no, it's not the only way to lose, and it doesn't trump CICO (although I think it does help regulate hormones).
This is the issue for many on LCHF. There are stories upon stories of ppl who ate a SAD, say 1500 calories a day and exercised and didnt lose weight or gained. Then they ate 1500 calories a day and exercised but ate LCHF and they lost weight in the short and long terms. Insulin is a hormone, if you have high insulin like IR or hormonal weirdness like PCOS, hormones play a HUGE roll in how you process what you eat and the types of food you eat.
So 1500 is a deficit yes, but what you eat, for many, is more important that how much you eat when it comes to weightloss.
wouldn't medicine for said medical conditions affect the "out" side of CO so at the end of the day, barring a medical condition, they would lose the same as the other person if they were both on 1500….0 -
ogmomma2012 wrote: »ogmomma2012 wrote: »Low carb still requires calorie counting. /thread
do you low carb? Just curious….
I did for about a month. It's not hard to fill up on leafy greens, meat and a little cheese even when your NET carbs are below 50g. I did keto, it was sustainable in my household but I stuck to it long enough to understand WHY people on low carb say they don't count calories. It's because fat and protien is more satifying, so most low-carbers tend to eat less anyway. I have to run to lunch now, be back in 30.
I did keto with the adkins, had the sticks that turned purple, was in ketosis I think a couple of weeks, then began to up the carbs as required but not by much. I took it as a lisense to eat too much and lost at first, but it can be easy for me to mess up, started wanting to cheat with a potato or toast. I just could not stop thinking about it. Anyway, i was not successful. In the end, as far as I can remember, I did not lose to much and eventually gained, but not much either. It evened out and my pocket emptied (that food pricey, cheese and meat) Now, I am finding my carbs are low, but not too low. Only because I can have lots of variety and I am definitely more satiated with protein and fat, but I still keep my calories low. Hmmm, I don't know if that all came out right. I am so hyped. I hope this thread takes off, very interesting topic
0 -
So no, it's not the only way to lose, and it doesn't trump CICO (although I think it does help regulate hormones).
This is the issue for many on LCHF. There are stories upon stories of ppl who ate a SAD, say 1500 calories a day and exercised and didnt lose weight or gained. Then they ate 1500 calories a day and exercised but ate LCHF and they lost weight in the short and long terms. Insulin is a hormone, if you have high insulin like IR or hormonal weirdness like PCOS, hormones play a HUGE roll in how you process what you eat and the types of food you eat.
So 1500 is a deficit yes, but what you eat, for many, is more important that how much you eat when it comes to weightloss.
So are you saying hormones can somehow significantly change one's calorie expenditure? Because that's kinda the only way this would make any sense.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »So no, it's not the only way to lose, and it doesn't trump CICO (although I think it does help regulate hormones).
This is the issue for many on LCHF. There are stories upon stories of ppl who ate a SAD, say 1500 calories a day and exercised and didnt lose weight or gained. Then they ate 1500 calories a day and exercised but ate LCHF and they lost weight in the short and long terms. Insulin is a hormone, if you have high insulin like IR or hormonal weirdness like PCOS, hormones play a HUGE roll in how you process what you eat and the types of food you eat.
So 1500 is a deficit yes, but what you eat, for many, is more important that how much you eat when it comes to weightloss.
So are you saying hormones can somehow significantly change one's calorie expenditure? Because that's kinda the only way this would make any sense.
I read it as the medical condition did….0 -
I can't speak to any other person's experience, and I do not eat low-carb myself. But I do wonder if people do respond differently to macronutrients. I can recall a genetic test by Inherent Health that I was going to take some years ago that would provide more information on how my genes impacted my response to diet and exercise.
Inherent Health claims that specific genes are associated with weight loss. If you take their test they will provide you with a report that tells you whether you have genes that indicate a sensitivity to dietary fat, carbs, and exercise. I have not analyzed their research, but I do find it thought-provoking.
http://www.inherenthealth.com/media/4759/wm_scientific summary.pdf0 -
Oh but I don't intentionally low carb, it's just working out that way. I just watch the stuff that can trigger me into wanting to much, like chips, peanuts, bread (oh lovely bread).. etc..
And there will be days in my maintenance future, Tortilla chips and homemade salsa!
0 -
ogmomma2012 wrote: »ogmomma2012 wrote: »Low carb still requires calorie counting. /thread
do you low carb? Just curious….
I did for about a month. It's not hard to fill up on leafy greens, meat and a little cheese even when your NET carbs are below 50g. I did keto, it was sustainable in my household but I stuck to it long enough to understand WHY people on low carb say they don't count calories. It's because fat and protien is more satifying, so most low-carbers tend to eat less anyway. I have to run to lunch now, be back in 30.
I did keto with the adkins, had the sticks that turned purple, was in ketosis I think a couple of weeks, then began to up the carbs as required but not by much. I took it as a lisense to eat too much and lost at first, but it can be easy for me to mess up, started wanting to cheat with a potato or toast. I just could not stop thinking about it. Anyway, i was not successful. In the end, as far as I can remember, I did not lose to much and eventually gained, but not much either. It evened out and my pocket emptied (that food pricey, cheese and meat) Now, I am finding my carbs are low, but not too low. Only because I can have lots of variety and I am definitely more satiated with protein and fat, but I still keep my calories low. Hmmm, I don't know if that all came out right. I am so hyped. I hope this thread takes off, very interesting topic
I just really love veggies, meat and cheese. I think that's why it worked for me... and cream cheese pancakes... delicious.
I would definitely do it again, thinking about it right now.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »I love carbs. But when I was younger and more willing to spend stupid amounts of money on unneccesary weight loss things, I signed up to a place called 'Healthy Inspirations', basically a Curves type gym that also gave you a Weight Watchers type meal plan. Their week one was a "healthy kickstart" where for 7 days straight where you can eat unlimited amounts of:
Meat - any type including bacon, seafood, eggs etc.
Veges - anything but the starchy ones
Dairy - Cheese, cream, butter but not milk
Nuts and olives
Knowing nothing of calories, I was easily packing away a couple hundred grams of cheese and the same in nuts a day for 7 days along with a crapload of bacon, steak, eggs etc all cooked in butter, and lost 5kg.
I know nothing of the science, and I wasn't tracking any calories but I've often thought about that, since I know so much more now and wonder how the hell I didn't GAIN 5kg that week.
Virtually no carbs so losing water weight, plus fat and protein tend to be filling so you easily could have eaten fewer calories that you'd think would be in what you ate. Let's say 4-5 servings of 30g slices of cheese (were you really eating that much cheese every day?) for ~600 calories, let's say another 600 calories in nuts, then maybe 600 in dairy, veggies ,and meat together. That's only 1800 calories, which would allow plenty of people to lose weight. I'm in the 150s now and I can lose on 1800 calories despite only working out ~4, max 5hrs a week (mostly weight lifting).
yeah. Yeah, I was haahaa. I pretty much used it as an excuse to go buy 3-4 different types and just devour them. King Island smoked cheddar, feta, brie... I put it in my eggs for breakfast, added swathes to my salads for lunch, and melted it over my meat for dinner. It was disgusting. So gorgeously disgusting...
Well I used to shred probably upwards of 100g of cheese, melt it in a bowl.... and just eat melted cheese LOL.
But I also way over-ate on calorie-dense food and still ate plenty of carbs, so I know why I gained
0 -
christinev297 wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Heres an example. Way back when, I was a member of an egg fast-stall breaker diet page. For 1-2 weeks these people ate nothing but eggs and fat (butter, mayo, coconut oil). The rule was 1 TBS fat per egg. The general amount of eggs consumed were 10-12 per day with the added fat alongside.
The calories were huge and yet the majority lost weigh like crazy!
at 70 calories an egg that would be 840 calories for 12 eggs …so if you just 12 eggs and some fats not sure you would hit 1500 ????
we must be doing our sums differently.
12 eggs= 840 calories
20g butter ×12= 1728 calories
Total== 2568 calories
And the fat could be either butter, coconut oil or mayonnaise
American tbsp is 15ml or 14grams.
0
So my CO takes a hit.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions