why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
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 -
GoPerfectHealth wrote: »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.pdf
Sounds like mostly baloney/taking a small detail and making it out to be all that matters.0 -
WTF is CICO0
-
Speaking for myself, I absolutely believe in CICO. It is Keto, however, that allows me to remain at a deficit easily.
That being said, I do believe I was suffering from some kind of insulin resistance prior. I once read an analogy that said trying to lose weight with IR is like putting the gas pedal down while a cinder block sits on the brake -- I've definitely felt like I was spinning my tires before.
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
I gained because I would house down two Philly cheesesteaks and an order of mozzarella sticks in one sitting…and that was just dinner….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….
Sometimes Yes I would think so. But if you've ever been on Metformin, which is what the most popular IR med is, the more carbs you eat the more things 'run' thru you. Being on the potty all day with LBS (leaky butt syndrome) is horrid. And even then, the meds only control so much insulin production, doesnt fix it. So eating a SAD is still going to cause some insulin problems and spikes even if you are on the max dose of Met.
IR and PCOS and Metabolic Syndrome are not curable, anymore than diabetes is. You can get rid of some or all of the symptoms if you eat correctly for your condition and keep the weight off. But if you go back to eating carbs, the symptoms come back.
And I am not sure there are many who would rather medicate themselves on things that 1.quit working with few backup meds to turn to or 2. be on meds the rest of their lives instead of helping their medical condition thru food.
So yes, the Met changes the CO but you have to know you have that medical condition in the first place, which often comes AFTER you've come here to the mfp or other forums complaining you are weighing and measuring correctly, you are eating (insert low amount of calories here) and you arent losing weight and then get ridiculed by those who firmly believe CICO is the beginning and end of the discussion.
As i stated before, the LCHF boards have repeatedly confirmed that the majority, but not all, who do LCHF have some sort of medical problem that LCHF helps tremendously.0 -
nicsflyingcircus wrote: »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.
Ahh ok . I must check exactly what they use here in Aus. Some say 15g equals a Tbs, others say 20g. I might just stick to 15g
0 -
TheVirgoddess 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.
I think things like this are water weight more than fat loss.
I'm interested in this topic, too.
What you said reminded me. I remember that if I fudged with any carb over the recommended amount, I swelled up bad.
0 -
[
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 -
You guys are making me hungry again!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….
Sometimes Yes I would think so. But if you've ever been on Metformin, which is what the most popular IR med is, the more carbs you eat the more things 'run' thru you. Being on the potty all day with LBS (leaky butt syndrome) is horrid. And even then, the meds only control so much insulin production, doesnt fix it. So eating a SAD is still going to cause some insulin problems and spikes even if you are on the max dose of Met.
IR and PCOS and Metabolic Syndrome are not curable, anymore than diabetes is. You can get rid of some or all of the symptoms if you eat correctly for your condition and keep the weight off. But if you go back to eating carbs, the symptoms come back.
And I am not sure there are many who would rather medicate themselves on things that 1.quit working with few backup meds to turn to or 2. be on meds the rest of their lives instead of helping their medical condition thru food.
So yes, the Met changes the CO but you have to know you have that medical condition in the first place, which often comes AFTER you've come here to the mfp or other forums complaining you are weighing and measuring correctly, you are eating (insert low amount of calories here) and you arent losing weight and then get ridiculed by those who firmly believe CICO is the beginning and end of the discussion.
As i stated before, the LCHF boards have repeatedly confirmed that the majority, but not all, who do LCHF have some sort of medical problem that LCHF helps tremendously.
thankfully, I have never had to take meds for any kind of insulin or metabolic syndrome..
usually, when people come back and say they are logging accurately and use a food scale, my next round of advice is to go to DR and get tested for medical condition ….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.
yesstevencloser 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….
and yes, the hormones, whether from something like pcos or from insulin and your metabolic syndrome or IR CAN, but doesnt always, change ones calorie expenditure.
I doubt, but i dont know for sure, that most who do LCHF dont do it because limiting cake, ice cream, etc is fun or that they love torturing themselves. Most have found that to be the one way they can lose any decent amount of weight after they have tried a SAD and it failed repeatedly.0 -
Haven't read all the comments. However, I am almost ALWAYS over on my carbs and sugars...whoops! I'd die if I went low-carb. I definitely am a CICO person and I don't restrict myself too much. My body can't handle the same amounts of food that I used to eat and my body physically rejects certain foods. But I'm not unrealistic about my food.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
omg I can't keep up with this thread!! Everytime I reply to something, 20 odd posts are typed at the same time!
As for the melted cheese thing, yum!! I melt cheese in the fry pan, add a bit of soya sauce and then dunk rye bread in to scoop out the cheese. No bowl required, eat straight out the pan
0 -
Alliwan wrote:I doubt, but i dont know for sure, that most who do LCHF dont do it because limiting cake, ice cream, etc is fun or that they love torturing themselves. Most have found that to be the one way they can lose any decent amount of weight after they have tried a SAD and it failed repeatedly.
Yes, exactly. I absolutely think moderation is the best approach...if it works. For me, it does not.
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.
Most likely because they were not logging or simply not logging accurately.
Also have someone on my friends list with PCOS and her carbs are often pretty high... she's lost 30lbs iirc.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »You guys are making me hungry again!
don't blame your uncontrollable hunger on my thread!!!!!!
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….
Sometimes Yes I would think so. But if you've ever been on Metformin, which is what the most popular IR med is, the more carbs you eat the more things 'run' thru you. Being on the potty all day with LBS (leaky butt syndrome) is horrid. And even then, the meds only control so much insulin production, doesnt fix it. So eating a SAD is still going to cause some insulin problems and spikes even if you are on the max dose of Met.
IR and PCOS and Metabolic Syndrome are not curable, anymore than diabetes is. You can get rid of some or all of the symptoms if you eat correctly for your condition and keep the weight off. But if you go back to eating carbs, the symptoms come back.
And I am not sure there are many who would rather medicate themselves on things that 1.quit working with few backup meds to turn to or 2. be on meds the rest of their lives instead of helping their medical condition thru food.
So yes, the Met changes the CO but you have to know you have that medical condition in the first place, which often comes AFTER you've come here to the mfp or other forums complaining you are weighing and measuring correctly, you are eating (insert low amount of calories here) and you arent losing weight and then get ridiculed by those who firmly believe CICO is the beginning and end of the discussion.
As i stated before, the LCHF boards have repeatedly confirmed that the majority, but not all, who do LCHF have some sort of medical problem that LCHF helps tremendously.
thankfully, I have never had to take meds for any kind of insulin or metabolic syndrome..
usually, when people come back and say they are logging accurately and use a food scale, my next round of advice is to go to DR and get tested for medical condition ….
Many on here will basically call the person who said this that they were lying and to open their diary for more inspection, etc long BEFORE they are given suggestions on what to ask for from the Doctor. Not saying you do, as I dont know you or your posting history really. But Ive seen that scenario often and some come to the 'haven' of the LCHF boards after being berated here.
General doctors often dont know what to look for. They run the standard simple thyroid test and usually and A1C and if they are normal, which for IR, PCOS and metabolic syndrome tey usually are, tell to eat less and move more and send you on your way. You have to actually know to ask for a fasting insulin test. With IR and Metabolic syndrome at least, your A1C and glucose levels are almost always dead set normal, it is the insulin that is very high and that's the problem.
So a little understanding that ppl dont know to ask for these things or are aware of these issues before the SAD fails them helps all of us be more mentally and physically healthy.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.
Most likely because they were not logging or simply not logging accurately.
Also have someone on my friends list with PCOS and her carbs are often pretty high... she's lost 30lbs iirc.
Not always. I measured, digitally weighed, and logged everything for three months with little loss (with a properly calculated deficit, yes).
I've also had two kinds of weight loss surgery without much success.
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