no carbs or low carbs
Options
Ashleighhunter92
Posts: 2
I'm trying to lose weight but eating the same gets boring. I eat chicken and vegetables for lunch. What is best?
Need some ideas
Need some ideas
0
Replies
-
You'll find some ideas here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
And here: http://www.reddit.com/r/ketorecipes
Also try these:
http://www.genaw.com/lowcarb/
http://www.ruled.me/keto-recipes/
http://www.ibreatheimhungry.com/recipes
http://cavemanketo.com/category/food/0 -
Why no or low carb? Do you have a medical condition?
Here's a list of protein sources: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/926789-protein-sources0 -
Chicken isn't great for low carb as you need plenty of fat and chicken is a bit short of that. Eggs, cheese, oily fish, avocado, tree nuts, 20% fat beefburger.....0
-
I struggle with foods, I really only like chicken, tuna and eggs0
-
I'm exactly the same I'm struggling with my low carb low calorie diet. I feel like all I'm eating is chicken, veg and eggs (not all together)
I'm trying to do low carb as carbs stick to me and just a week without Iv lost 5lb.0 -
To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?0
-
Salads!! Infinitely customizable, delicious, satisfying (granted you add a bit of nut protein), and wonderful for portability and easy prep.0
-
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.0 -
You'll find that just chicken veggies and eggs won't be enough eventually. Might as well add some fats and just go full keto. Nuts and cheese will be your friend, and some fattier meats too.0
-
Add some fat and oils to your diet like chicken thighs and drum sticks with the skin on. Cook the chicken breast with oil, cream cheese or sour cream or add some some mayo.0
-
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.0 -
If you can low carb for life go for it
I couldn't - it would be a miserable existence
I eat 50 - 60% of my calories in carbs
It's CICO0 -
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation0 -
Some Low Carb Food Items I eat regularly: Celery Sticks, Hard boiled eggs (No yolk), light skim cheese sticks, plain chiobani yogurt, almonds, salad.
I've had great success with low carb. I've lost 34.4 pounds in a little over 2 months. You can argue it's unhealthy that's all fine and well but almost daily i have a significant deficit. I cut out drinking as well and beer.
I eat carbs on the weekends, but generally maintain a healthy diet during the week. Eating healhty all the time gets monotonous.0 -
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Not when you're using a pre-programmed calculator. It's trial and error, and no amount of playing semantics games is going to change that. You will not find a single website, including this one, that lets you enter your basic stats and gives you a TDEE that accounts for insulin resistance, for example, because even two given people with IR aren't affected by it to the same exact degree.
The energy balance equation is a system of variables. When someone says "CICO doesn't work for me" they are saying the pre-programmed standard variables in that system are not accurate for them. You can pretend that's not what they mean, but it's not doing anyone any favors.0 -
^This is true. Doesn't mean the equation doesn't work, but people aren't viewing the equation in the same way. Lots of arguments on here start because people want to label things but people don't understand what they mean by the label.
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Not when you're using a pre-programmed calculator. It's trial and error, and no amount of playing semantics games is going to change that. You will not find a single website, including this one, that lets you enter your basic stats and gives you a TDEE that accounts for insulin resistance, for example, because even two given people with IR aren't affected by it to the same exact degree.
The energy balance equation is a system of variables. When someone says "CICO doesn't work for me" they are saying the pre-programmed standard variables in that system are not accurate for them. You can pretend that's not what they mean, but it's not doing anyone any favors.
And I agree with the first response. There is no such thing as no carb (veggies have carbs, as do eggs), but from your description it seems you are looking for VERY low carb. Adding "keto" to your search for recipes will really help refine the responses.
0 -
CICO, anyone who says otherwise is probably referring to the additional water weight lost when doing keto/VLCD's.christinev297 wrote: »To those of you losing weight doing low carb... Do you think your losing because you've lowered your carbs or you've lowered your calories?
I struggle a bit too because of the restrictiveness, but it is better than constantly feeling hungry.
For some people. There was a huge thread about this recently, but what it comes down to is for a lot of people, the standard given formulas for calculating CICO, including the one used by default on MFP, is incorrect for them, because they have other factors that affect how their body uses food. The same person can eat 1500 calories using a "normal" macro breakdown and not lose weight, or only lose tiny amounts, then eat 1500 calories with carbs restricted, the difference made up in fats, and lose 1-2lbs a week. The shorthand for explaining that is often saying something like "CICO didn't work for me" or "losing more on the same amount of calories." If someone is ignorant of how all these different metabolic issues work, they'll often assume the person is claiming to be a magical fairy-dust infused special snowflake, when what they're really saying is the standard CICO formula is not universal.
LOL, the standard CICO works for everyone. Metabolic issues are covered in the energy balance equation
Yup. Are there individual variations? Sure, but they're not dramatic enough to overcome CICO. Every car off the assembly line is also slightly different from the others but the reason you're not going to get the same mileage as the other drivers is because no two people drive their car the same way. No one gets a car that magically gets 20% better mileage or works significantly better with different fuel blends, although it's tempting to believe it and there are hucksters out there who promise that their special fuel additive will greatly increase your car's performance and mileage. Even if it's true, it won't overcome the difference between driver A's mostly highway miles on an open road and driver B's bumper to bumper commute.
With people, variation from CICO is mostly due to different activity levels and inaccuracies in food calories consumed compared to what's on the label. MFP estimates for calories burned and manufacturers estimates for calories in food are just that: estimates. They are an average that don't take into account workout intensity, muscle mass, the 6 flights of stairs you might go up and down several times per day, not to mention the variation among food itself: Just looking at a loaf of bread you can see that some pieces are larger than others.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
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions