Extreme Low Carb Diet
Replies
-
Traveler120 wrote: »
I thought this thread was about carbs...
Not protein, fat.Traveler120 wrote: »
No, I aim for at least half my ideal bodyweight in lbs for protein. That's 60g minimum but I routinely get at least 70g, and 280 cals which is about 15% of my 1700-1800 cals/day. I eat a handful of nuts several times/week and keep added oils low (empty nutrient-less calories), so this makes fat around 5-10% at most. Works for me.
Isn't a combination of the essential macro nutrients of fats & proteins making up only 20% of your calories? It sounds like you are only getting 300 calories a day in fats & proteins. Something like 20gr fat and 30gr protein? That doesn't sound like an example that should be shown to others. You may want to review the basis for your diet and monitor your long term health very closely.Traveler120 wrote: »most of the carbs people seem to be "addicted" to and whatnot seem to be of this mix...i've yet to here about black beans giving anyone crazy cravings...Black beans have protein and tons and tons of fiber -- not a carb anywhere close to chips or pizza.
Exactly. My diet is 80% carbs because I now eat lots of beans, lentils, whole grains, potatoes, veggies and fruits and very very little junk/processed food. I go well over 300g carbs almost daily, and at 125 lbs, I'm almost done losing weight. And yet, these are healthy whole foods that a low-carber would have no choice but to avoid or limit themselves to non-starchy veggies only. This is the problem with fixating on macros instead of whole foods and nutrient density. Glad I got off that low-carb bandwagon. It was a complete waste of time and compared to what I eat now, much less healthy.100 grams of black beans (measured raw) would be 341 calories, of which 248 calories (or 72%) are from carbs, and 88 calories or 26% are from protein. Much more carby, really. That you'd say it's less of a "carb" than foods that are much higher in fat and lower in carb percentage is interesting and shows how the term "carb" gets so misused in these discussions, as if it meant "junk food." When, of course, fruits and vegetables are classic carbs.
Oh, and I should add that my most recent fasting blood glucose was 70 (normal range should be 65-99).
That's for those who still think that somehow carbs cause your blood glucose and insulin to do something other than what they're supposed to do, which is to behave normally.
Only time will tell, my bro lived on a fifth a day for quite a while. Until he didn't.
And if you think that the protein is low, it's not. My labs show perfectly normal serum protein. It's also funny that you suggest my diet is not a good example to others and my long term health is at risk when what I'm eating is mainly unprocessed whole grains, potatoes, beans, lentils, fruits, veggies and nuts. Yes, very unhealthy indeed! Please check with your doctor before embarking on such a radical diet. lol
The USDA recommends that healthy adults over the age of 19 consume between 20 and 35 percent of their daily calories from fat
And that is from an organization with systemic fat phobia.
Ok then, here's what the American Heart Association recommends on fat:
And as we know, heart disease is America's #1 killer. I want to keep my cholesterol low and follow the AHA recs. I get my good fats from nuts and seeds, keep saturated fat absolutely low and given the above recommendations, looks like I'm doing a bloody good job.Limit saturated fat and trans fat and replace them with the better fats, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated. If you need to lower your blood cholesterol, reduce saturated fat to no more than 5 to 6 percent of total calories. For someone eating 2,000 calories a day, that’s about 13 grams of saturated fat.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/The-American-Heart-Associations-Diet-and-Lifestyle-Recommendations_UCM_305855_Article.jsp
AHA recommends 25-35% of calories as fat.
Seriously, you can eat any way you want. But just like a 900 calorie diet, do not present your diet as healthy for anyone else.
And he never did, just as an alternative to those who have been arguing that a low carb diet is necessary.
Or the healthiest.
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
Yes, I focus on whole grains, legumes, tubers, fruits, veggies, nuts. Then when I plug them into a tracker, it just so happens to be very high carb because it's mostly plants. So I don't start with a macro setting in mind and then eat based on that. I select the healthy foods and variety I want and then let the macros fall where they may.Gianfranco_R wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »most of the carbs people seem to be "addicted" to and whatnot seem to be of this mix...i've yet to here about black beans giving anyone crazy cravings...Black beans have protein and tons and tons of fiber -- not a carb anywhere close to chips or pizza.
Exactly. My diet is 80% carbs because I now eat lots of beans, lentils, whole grains, potatoes, veggies and fruits and very very little junk/processed food. I go well over 300g carbs almost daily, and at 125 lbs, I'm almost done losing weight. And yet, these are healthy whole foods that a low-carber would have no choice but to avoid or limit themselves to non-starchy veggies only. This is the problem with fixating on macros instead of whole foods and nutrient density. Glad I got off that low-carb bandwagon. It was a complete waste of time and compared to what I eat now, much less healthy.100 grams of black beans (measured raw) would be 341 calories, of which 248 calories (or 72%) are from carbs, and 88 calories or 26% are from protein. Much more carby, really. That you'd say it's less of a "carb" than foods that are much higher in fat and lower in carb percentage is interesting and shows how the term "carb" gets so misused in these discussions, as if it meant "junk food." When, of course, fruits and vegetables are classic carbs.
Oh, and I should add that my most recent fasting blood glucose was 70 (normal range should be 65-99).
That's for those who still think that somehow carbs cause your blood glucose and insulin to do something other than what they're supposed to do, which is to behave normally.
wait, you eat 80% carbs (that I guess is possible only going vegetarian) and are not "fixated" on macros?
not so many nuts, if your 5/10% fat is accurate
0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
I thought this thread was about carbs...
Not protein, fat.Traveler120 wrote: »
No, I aim for at least half my ideal bodyweight in lbs for protein. That's 60g minimum but I routinely get at least 70g, and 280 cals which is about 15% of my 1700-1800 cals/day. I eat a handful of nuts several times/week and keep added oils low (empty nutrient-less calories), so this makes fat around 5-10% at most. Works for me.
Isn't a combination of the essential macro nutrients of fats & proteins making up only 20% of your calories? It sounds like you are only getting 300 calories a day in fats & proteins. Something like 20gr fat and 30gr protein? That doesn't sound like an example that should be shown to others. You may want to review the basis for your diet and monitor your long term health very closely.Traveler120 wrote: »most of the carbs people seem to be "addicted" to and whatnot seem to be of this mix...i've yet to here about black beans giving anyone crazy cravings...Black beans have protein and tons and tons of fiber -- not a carb anywhere close to chips or pizza.
Exactly. My diet is 80% carbs because I now eat lots of beans, lentils, whole grains, potatoes, veggies and fruits and very very little junk/processed food. I go well over 300g carbs almost daily, and at 125 lbs, I'm almost done losing weight. And yet, these are healthy whole foods that a low-carber would have no choice but to avoid or limit themselves to non-starchy veggies only. This is the problem with fixating on macros instead of whole foods and nutrient density. Glad I got off that low-carb bandwagon. It was a complete waste of time and compared to what I eat now, much less healthy.100 grams of black beans (measured raw) would be 341 calories, of which 248 calories (or 72%) are from carbs, and 88 calories or 26% are from protein. Much more carby, really. That you'd say it's less of a "carb" than foods that are much higher in fat and lower in carb percentage is interesting and shows how the term "carb" gets so misused in these discussions, as if it meant "junk food." When, of course, fruits and vegetables are classic carbs.
Oh, and I should add that my most recent fasting blood glucose was 70 (normal range should be 65-99).
That's for those who still think that somehow carbs cause your blood glucose and insulin to do something other than what they're supposed to do, which is to behave normally.
Only time will tell, my bro lived on a fifth a day for quite a while. Until he didn't.
And if you think that the protein is low, it's not. My labs show perfectly normal serum protein. It's also funny that you suggest my diet is not a good example to others and my long term health is at risk when what I'm eating is mainly unprocessed whole grains, potatoes, beans, lentils, fruits, veggies and nuts. Yes, very unhealthy indeed! Please check with your doctor before embarking on such a radical diet. lol
The USDA recommends that healthy adults over the age of 19 consume between 20 and 35 percent of their daily calories from fat
And that is from an organization with systemic fat phobia.
Ok then, here's what the American Heart Association recommends on fat:
And as we know, heart disease is America's #1 killer. I want to keep my cholesterol low and follow the AHA recs. I get my good fats from nuts and seeds, keep saturated fat absolutely low and given the above recommendations, looks like I'm doing a bloody good job.Limit saturated fat and trans fat and replace them with the better fats, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated. If you need to lower your blood cholesterol, reduce saturated fat to no more than 5 to 6 percent of total calories. For someone eating 2,000 calories a day, that’s about 13 grams of saturated fat.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/The-American-Heart-Associations-Diet-and-Lifestyle-Recommendations_UCM_305855_Article.jsp
AHA recommends 25-35% of calories as fat.
Seriously, you can eat any way you want. But just like a 900 calorie diet, do not present your diet as healthy for anyone else.
And he never did, just as an alternative to those who have been arguing that a low carb diet is necessary.
Or the healthiest.
and nobody is continuously stalking the low-carb threads, right ?
0 -
It has been proven in recent studies that after 12-24 months on a low carb diet they stop working. So they are ok for initial weight loss but do not do it long term. Also unless you have a medical condition that requires a low carb diet be prepared for the side effects. Low carb diets cause fatigue due to the fact your body uses carbs to produce energy. Also suddenly cutting carbs can cause headaches, bad breath, weakness, constipation, and diarrhea
Source mayo clinic0 -
-
It has been proven in recent studies that after 12-24 months on a low carb diet they stop working. So they are ok for initial weight loss but do not do it long term. Also unless you have a medical condition that requires a low carb diet be prepared for the side effects. Low carb diets cause fatigue due to the fact your body uses carbs to produce energy. Also suddenly cutting carbs can cause headaches, bad breath, weakness, constipation, and diarrhea
Source mayo clinic
if you have a source, why not to give the link?
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/weight-loss/in-depth/low-carb-diet/art-20045831?pg=2
0 -
I only see members that are involved in a lot of post, not just low carb. If you think people are stalking threads is because you or others are only coming in these threads.Gianfranco_R wrote: »and nobody is continuously stalking the low-carb threads, right ?
0 -
Nor does it automatically improve blood and hormone profiles (any associated weight loss with it does that). If you wanted to test that theory, over-eat on keto to see if it has similar results as overeating on all other types of food.
I recommend reading about diet changes without caloric restriction to remove the confusion of weight loss. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/16 for example.
Overeating carbohydrate will fatten up the liver and increase triglycerides and we have known for ages that high fat hypocaloric diet has a greater reduction in triglycerides than the same calories with a high % carbohydrate.
First link is for those with Type 2, is that representative of the population at large? Certainly not based on the current statistics
Who cares if diabetics are representative. They don't have totally unique biochemistry. The point is the change of parameters with a change of diet composition independent of weight loss. You can go and look for a similar study in non-diabetics to nitpick if you like, if one exists. Studies are done for a reason and diabetes gets a lot of funding hence is a readily accessible source for me to look up.
0 -
I only see members that are involved in a lot of post, not just low carb. If you think people are stalking threads is because you or others are only coming in these threads.Gianfranco_R wrote: »and nobody is continuously stalking the low-carb threads, right ?
Admittedly, they are the most entertaining
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
I only see members that are involved in a lot of post, not just low carb. If you think people are stalking threads is because you or others are only coming in these threads.Gianfranco_R wrote: »and nobody is continuously stalking the low-carb threads, right ?
Admittedly, they are the most entertaining
And that is why i show up... because the most entertaining ones generally have the best studies
0 -
It has been proven in recent studies that after 12-24 months on a low carb diet they stop working. So they are ok for initial weight loss but do not do it long term. Also unless you have a medical condition that requires a low carb diet be prepared for the side effects. Low carb diets cause fatigue due to the fact your body uses carbs to produce energy. Also suddenly cutting carbs can cause headaches, bad breath, weakness, constipation, and diarrhea
Source mayo clinic
The studies were 12-24 months long. What I think Mayo said was there wasn't much difference in weight loss, but went on to say there were some slightly better improvements in the numbers that represent health risks.0 -
Nor does it automatically improve blood and hormone profiles (any associated weight loss with it does that). If you wanted to test that theory, over-eat on keto to see if it has similar results as overeating on all other types of food.
I recommend reading about diet changes without caloric restriction to remove the confusion of weight loss. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/16 for example.
Overeating carbohydrate will fatten up the liver and increase triglycerides and we have known for ages that high fat hypocaloric diet has a greater reduction in triglycerides than the same calories with a high % carbohydrate.
First link is for those with Type 2, is that representative of the population at large? Certainly not based on the current statistics
Who cares if diabetics are representative. They don't have totally unique biochemistry. The point is the change of parameters with a change of diet composition independent of weight loss. You can go and look for a similar study in non-diabetics to nitpick if you like, if one exists. Studies are done for a reason and diabetes gets a lot of funding hence is a readily accessible source for me to look up.
You should care if you're non-diabetic. If the sample population is diabetics, that pretty much renders any nutritional study results questionable at best for anyone without diabetes until and unless an equivalent study with a non-diabetic sample population shows the same results.
Would you compare diets with a sample population that all have fat processing disorders or various absorption disorders and assume those results hold true in healthy people? I would hope not.0 -
Nor does it automatically improve blood and hormone profiles (any associated weight loss with it does that). If you wanted to test that theory, over-eat on keto to see if it has similar results as overeating on all other types of food.
I recommend reading about diet changes without caloric restriction to remove the confusion of weight loss. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/16 for example.
Overeating carbohydrate will fatten up the liver and increase triglycerides and we have known for ages that high fat hypocaloric diet has a greater reduction in triglycerides than the same calories with a high % carbohydrate.
First link is for those with Type 2, is that representative of the population at large? Certainly not based on the current statistics
Who cares if diabetics are representative. They don't have totally unique biochemistry. The point is the change of parameters with a change of diet composition independent of weight loss. You can go and look for a similar study in non-diabetics to nitpick if you like, if one exists. Studies are done for a reason and diabetes gets a lot of funding hence is a readily accessible source for me to look up.
"The point is the change of parameters with a change of diet composition independent of weight loss"
In a specific, non representative sample. If it isn't applicable to he population at large, what does it really say?
0 -
Yep, eating high protein and low carb is generally asking for trouble, it's safer to go high fat, low carb. I've been off and on low carb since I've been 6 and my blood panel is excellent. Media is run by money, scientists money, and even ourselves are victims to what the money says. Do what makes you feel amazing and great. I eat vLCHF and it works awesome to me. No adverse side effects.
I workout/train better on vLCHF vs SAD. My grandmother when she found out she had bladder cancer went LCHF and her cancer went away. She still been eating it for 5 years now and has lost her weight and going strong.
Science is fluid and not concrete. Everyone can argue day and night about the pros and cons, but results are results.
Also side note, due to the way that carbs are metabolized vs fats, I can eat up to 2600 kcal from vHFLC and still lose, but on SAD I can't go past 2100 kcal without gaining.
0 -
I only did carb cycling when I was getting ready for a competition and during that period of time I was a miserable *&%$ incapable of rational thought. I have to have carbs in my diet for my activity level and just to even be able to think. I just kill my workouts, eat reasonably clean, log my foods and that works for me. Flexible dieting is a beautiful thing. 45% of my diet is carbs, 30 protein and 25 fat. Like sixxpoint mentioned, it doesn't have to be complicated and it isn't hard to lose weight. Common sense, will power, and getting off your butt does wonders. Oh and having patience and trust in the process. I know when I was carb cycling it was stressed that I couldn't keep at that process for long as it wasn't healthy. I don't know the ins and outs of reasons why etc. but I do know I felt like crap while doing it, so I was good doing it only when I had to.
Ok, now bring on the carbs haha0 -
I'll take things that never happened for $500 Alex.mcpostelle wrote: »Yep, eating high protein and low carb is generally asking for trouble, it's safer to go high fat, low carb. I've been off and on low carb since I've been 6 and my blood panel is excellent. Media is run by money, scientists money, and even ourselves are victims to what the money says. Do what makes you feel amazing and great. I eat vLCHF and it works awesome to me. No adverse side effects.
I workout/train better on vLCHF vs SAD. My grandmother when she found out she had bladder cancer went LCHF and her cancer went away. She still been eating it for 5 years now and has lost her weight and going strong.
Science is fluid and not concrete. Everyone can argue day and night about the pros and cons, but results are results.
Also side note, due to the way that carbs are metabolized vs fats, I can eat up to 2600 kcal from vHFLC and still lose, but on SAD I can't go past 2100 kcal without gaining.0 -
ORLY?mcpostelle wrote: »Yep, eating high protein and low carb is generally asking for trouble, it's safer to go high fat, low carb. I've been off and on low carb since I've been 6 and my blood panel is excellent. Media is run by money, scientists money, and even ourselves are victims to what the money says. Do what makes you feel amazing and great. I eat vLCHF and it works awesome to me. No adverse side effects.
I workout/train better on vLCHF vs SAD. My grandmother when she found out she had bladder cancer went LCHF and her cancer went away. She still been eating it for 5 years now and has lost her weight and going strong.
Science is fluid and not concrete. Everyone can argue day and night about the pros and cons, but results are results.
Also side note, due to the way that carbs are metabolized vs fats, I can eat up to 2600 kcal from vHFLC and still lose, but on SAD I can't go past 2100 kcal without gaining.
0 -
He's got a whole family tree of people that need to be tested for science, apparently.stevencloser wrote: »
ORLY?mcpostelle wrote: »Yep, eating high protein and low carb is generally asking for trouble, it's safer to go high fat, low carb. I've been off and on low carb since I've been 6 and my blood panel is excellent. Media is run by money, scientists money, and even ourselves are victims to what the money says. Do what makes you feel amazing and great. I eat vLCHF and it works awesome to me. No adverse side effects.
I workout/train better on vLCHF vs SAD. My grandmother when she found out she had bladder cancer went LCHF and her cancer went away. She still been eating it for 5 years now and has lost her weight and going strong.
Science is fluid and not concrete. Everyone can argue day and night about the pros and cons, but results are results.
Also side note, due to the way that carbs are metabolized vs fats, I can eat up to 2600 kcal from vHFLC and still lose, but on SAD I can't go past 2100 kcal without gaining.0 -
No. I'm saying that when counting calories I find that I have to eat 1200-1500 cals to lose. But counting carbs I can eat 1800-2000 and still loseI will have to wait and see how much more weight I lose but many people have lost 50-100+ lbs on it and kept it off. I'm enjoying the food, staying full and not hungry and have lost my cravings for sugar so I'm satisfied with it. Not every eating plan works for very person and a lot of you don't seem to realize that.
I know I am late to the convo and only made it to page 5 before I finally gave up reading any more.
But the person above confuses me.
How can you eat only 1200-1500 cals and still eat food that triggers sugar cravings? Good Lord! When I ate only between 1200-1500 cals, the only way I could go that low was to cut out as much sugar stuff I could except for some fruit. What the heck were you eating on 1200-1500 that triggered sugar cravings? Also, how do you know you actually ate 1800-2000 calories if you are no longer counting calories?
Folks! When you start adding more protein and healthy fat and start eating veggies, that is not necessarily low carb. It may be lower carb if you cut out pastas and breads and such like I did temporarily but not necssarily low carb. That is just called eating healthier and more balanced. if you eat vegatables, veggies are a carb. If you eat fruit (and you should because of the vitamins and antioxidants and fiber) they are carbs too. If you are going to eat grains and pastas, you should in whole form (i.e. 100% whole wheat bread or pasta). But exercise portion control. But if you decide to cut out all bread and pastas, then that's fine. Whatever works. But you have white and sweet potatoes which are very good for you. They are carbs, but necessary if you are also looking at vitamins and minerals. Too many people looking to loose weight and cut out calories and certain macros but forget they need certain micros. Vitamins folks. And things like potasium and magnesium. Zinc and iron are all important. Where are you going to get it from? From a One A Day tablet?
Here is another example, and sorry for picking on @BaileighJoosteHiggins and @Melmo1988 . I am sure you 2 are trying your best to become healthier. And for that I salute the 2 of you. And I wish each and everyone of you on this thread the best of luck.BaileighJoosteHiggins wrote: »I've just done a 9 week stint on the New Atkins diet and this is what happened to me:
I lost 12 kilograms in 9 weeks
I got over my sugar addiction because no sugar is allowed
I learned to control my portions and be satisfied with less food - low carb, moderate protein and high fat is surprisingly filling.
I learned to eat vegetables because you HAVE to eat a certain amount per day
I learned to plan ahead, cook with the minimum of spices and appreciate flavors
I learned to drink water
All in all the diet really helped me and taught me a LOT.
BUT I am no longer on it because: I tend to be impulsive and on that diet you have to plan almost every meal. i also enjoy variety and that diet is very restrictive in the beginning. You can slowly add carbs, fruit, dairy etc back to your diet as you progress but I wasn't willing to wait that long.
Still, I'm sure it works for a lot of people. Why don't you try it and find out if it suits you or not?
First off. Great job in loosing 12 kg in 9 weeks.
I am happy you found Atkins to help you get off your sugar addiction.
However I am not sure how to attribute Atkins just because it is one of many plans that tell you to get off sugar. If you don't want to eat sugar, then just cut it out, period. Not sure why you need Atkins to do it. Same as the other things, portion control, eating more protein and "healthy" fat, eating vegatables, planning ahead, drinking water....
You could have just as easily went on Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig and achieved the same results.
Again, it is about healthier living and building a much healthier attitude towards food. If having a structured plan like Atkins, or WW, or Paleo, or Meal O'matic XYZ helps you achieve that, then great. But low carb is not necessarily any magic pill.
I agree with most of the comments. There is no low cal vs low carb debate. If you are trying to loose weight via low carb, you can only do it by also going into a calorie deficit. By the way, the first example I used above? There is only 500 calorie difference between 1200-1500 & 1800-2000. It is possible that you were still in a calorie deficit at 2000 despite lowering the carbs and upping the calories a lil bit. It depends what your bodies maintenance limit is. In fact, there is a lot of comments in years past in these forums to tell people to up their calories a little bit if they slump. We used to call them the "starvation mode people".
I am training for a marathon, so that is how I can eat lot and still stay sexy as I am. LOL Too bad my wife is the only one who gets to enjoy it.
But on a serious note, I still have to eat a lot of protein, fruits, vegatables, whole grains, yoghurt, my 1% milk with protein powder shake every morning, whole potatoes, ect. I just have lots of room because of all the calories I burn with running so i can drink my beer and have my cake and eat it too. (I apologize if mentioning cake is a trigger for anyone.)
0 -
A newbie here. Can someone acronym bust SAD?
Any thoughts on fibre?0 -
SamandaIndia wrote: »A newbie here. Can someone acronym bust SAD?
Any thoughts on fibre?
Standard American Diet.
Fiber is good for your poops.0 -
SamandaIndia wrote: »A newbie here. Can someone acronym bust SAD?
Any thoughts on fibre?
I am going out on a limb here, but maybe Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) aka the winter blues?
I got that from a quick google search and does not make much sense in this context. I am just as lost as you.
Just smile and wave boys. Just smile and wave.0 -
See Steven's comment. I always take a moment to adjust when I see SAD used on the board because your acronym is the one I've used more in the past, but on MFP the default use of SAD is standard American diet.SamandaIndia wrote: »A newbie here. Can someone acronym bust SAD?
Any thoughts on fibre?
I am going out on a limb here, but maybe Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) aka the winter blues?
I got that from a quick google search and does not make much sense in this context. I am just as lost as you.
Just smile and wave boys. Just smile and wave.0 -
SamandaIndia wrote: »A newbie here. Can someone acronym bust SAD?
Any thoughts on fibre?
What about fibre? Fibre (or fiber) is a complex carb in which humans do not have the proper enzymes to digest or break down, so it goes out the back door as a Number 2. Fiber is important in a diet (using the term "diet" in a generic sense) because it helps keep your solid waste in the digestive tract moving and fills you up so you want to eat less.
0 -
See Steven's comment. I always take a moment to adjust when I see SAD used on the board because your acronym is the one I've used more in the past, but on MFP the default use of SAD is standard American diet.SamandaIndia wrote: »A newbie here. Can someone acronym bust SAD?
Any thoughts on fibre?
I am going out on a limb here, but maybe Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) aka the winter blues?
I got that from a quick google search and does not make much sense in this context. I am just as lost as you.
Just smile and wave boys. Just smile and wave.
Thank you for that clarification.
0 -
I bet you that you are FEELING like you are eating more- that's one of the reasons low carb works for creating a deficit-starchy carbs take up a HUGE chunk of calories.WinoGelato wrote: »gettingfitformywedding wrote: »My mom and co worker have convinced me that a low carb diet is what I should follow to reach my weight loss goals. I've read the other forums and am not interested in the debate on whether low calorie or low carb is the better of two.. I've tried low carb, I did well on it but constantly felt hungry. I know different diets work for different people, but these two people in particular have lost significant weight following extreme low carb diet. My coworker has lost 120 pounds since January of this year when he went to the doctor for the first time in awhile and found out he was diabetic and weighed over 300 pounds. These two people are following a diet similar to Atkins.. only eating 20-30 carbs per day. I suppose my question is.. is this realistic? 20 carbs is not a lot at all especially when you're used to eating 200-250 carbs per day. I feel that even if I lose the weight, or in my coworkers situation that when/if he stops following the low carb regime OR even goes back to eating a daily recommended amount of carbs that he will likely gain it back. Advice?
If a low carb diet helps you implement a low calorie diet, good for you. If you expect to eat the same calories that you do today, but only change the macros, nothing will happen.
Not true. You CAN eat more calories and lose weight if you're limiting carbs.
To the op, I on Atkins now and you need to make sure you are eating enough fat to feel full. I eat 3-4 meals a day and I am satisfied and I used to eat junk food all day long.
Edit to add, Atkins can be low calorie depending on what you eat but you're not supposed to count calories. I know that I'm eating about 1800-1900 calories though and I've lost 4 pounds in the last 4 days with no exercise so...obv something is working
Sorry, to clarify, are you saying that if you eat a low carb diet, you can eat in a calorie surplus above your maintenance level and still lose weight?
No. I'm saying that when counting calories I find that I have to eat 1200-1500 cals to lose. But counting carbs I can eat 1800-2000 and still lose
It's one of the main reasons I don't eat spaghetti/pastas- it's simple to many calories and I'm not full.
Ultimately low carb works for people b/c it's cutting out such a large portion of their diet. I have found a happy balance- I'm not truly low carb- I eat around 150- I've been significantly more lenient lately due to half marathon training- but otherwise- when I'm just lifting- I aim to eat more protein and fats and my carbs tend to come from veggies and ice cream.
But no there pumpkin- you aren't losing by eating MORE food.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, also a bag of Doritos has 140 calories, 68 of which are from carbs, 63 of which are from fat. Again, seems weird to blame "carbs" for those calories. Pizza generally has a ton of calories from fat too, cheese, fatty meats (if you add them), olives, olive oil or whatever else is used depending on the pizza.
It's so weird how people write off high cal foods they tend to overeat as "carbs" when typically they are a mix.
It's only weird if you don't factor in what happens to insulin when you eat carbohydrates.
sigh.
insulin spikes to build muscles... you're right- carbs are great for that!!!
DEM GAINZ SON!0 -
gettingfitformywedding wrote: »My mom and co worker have convinced me that a low carb diet is what I should follow to reach my weight loss goals. I've read the other forums and am not interested in the debate on whether low calorie or low carb is the better of two.. I've tried low carb, I did well on it but constantly felt hungry. I know different diets work for different people, but these two people in particular have lost significant weight following extreme low carb diet. My coworker has lost 120 pounds since January of this year when he went to the doctor for the first time in awhile and found out he was diabetic and weighed over 300 pounds. These two people are following a diet similar to Atkins.. only eating 20-30 carbs per day. I suppose my question is.. is this realistic? 20 carbs is not a lot at all especially when you're used to eating 200-250 carbs per day. I feel that even if I lose the weight, or in my coworkers situation that when/if he stops following the low carb regime OR even goes back to eating a daily recommended amount of carbs that he will likely gain it back. Advice?
If a low carb diet helps you implement a low calorie diet, good for you. If you expect to eat the same calories that you do today, but only change the macros, nothing will happen.
Not true. You CAN eat more calories and lose weight if you're limiting carbs.
To the op, I on Atkins now and you need to make sure you are eating enough fat to feel full. I eat 3-4 meals a day and I am satisfied and I used to eat junk food all day long.
Edit to add, Atkins can be low calorie depending on what you eat but you're not supposed to count calories. I know that I'm eating about 1800-1900 calories though and I've lost 4 pounds in the last 4 days with no exercise so...obv something is working
One more thing I feel a need to add.
When you restrict carbs going in (via what you eat), your body is temporarily still running on carbs because your body naturally stores carbs in the form of glycogen. Your body stores this in a limit quanty in your liver and it stores this glycogen in a limited amount in your muscles. Glycogen is formed in your body by chaining glucose molecules with 3 to 4 parts water molecules. So as your body stores glycogen, there is quite a bit of water weight. Glycogen is good especially those that have to perform high intensity exercises like running fast or doing HIIT (high intensity interval training). Glycogen is very important because when your body needs a lot of energy very quickly (like from standing still and then going into a full sprint for more than 40 seconds), the only way to continuing fueling this form of work is by glycogen.
Your body prefers carbs for energy because of the simplier process to turn glucose into ATP verses turning fatty acids into ATP. So whenever glucose and fatty acids are in the blood, your body will rather burn the glucose. When glucose levels drop, your body responds by releasing more glucose in the blood from the glycogen stored in the liver. Your brain can only function on glucose and not fatty acids.
It's only when your body starts going into a glycogen deficit that your body will start using the fatty acids. Your body will do this when you sleep at night. As you sleep, you stop eating. Your blood glucose drops, you start using your stored glycogen. But as this continues for 8 hours (as you sleep) glycogen levels drop and the body then begins turning to the fatty acids to preserve glucose for the brain.
This also happens in low intensity running for 90 minutes or longer. Your glycogen levels drop and your body begins to rely more on the fatty acids. However, if you run too fast, you get exhauted and hard to function because running too fast puts you into a situation where you rely on anaerobic conversion which requires glucose. Only glucose can be used anaerobically.
HIIT is popular because you do a high intensity workout for a much shorter time which burns more glycogen in that time. However, after the workout is done, your body will use whatever consumed carb to replace the glycogen you used in HIIT but the body will in the mean time will then turn to use fatty acids to fuel the body.
The point I wanted to make is that since each glycogen molecule also has 3 to 4 parts of water attached to it, as you store glycogen, you also store water which has weight. As you burn glycogen, you release that water. So in the first 3 weeks of a low carb diet, you are basically waiting for your body to slowly use up all that glycogen which also releases a lot of water weight.
So it is not really working because the weight you really want to loose is weight from stored fat, not the water weight. Try keeping the low carb diet for 3 weeks then watch that your weight loss suddenly just goes flatter. If you continue to eat in a calorie deficit, you will loose weight, but not as much after the 3 week period. You will also notice after the 3 weeks, once you start eating more carbs, you will quickly gain weight. It's only because your body will use those carbs to begin generating that stored glycogen in conjunction with water molecules. But when it is all said and done, the only way you will loose the fat long term is by the calorie deficit. The low carb thing is not a magic pill. Just a marketing gymic these people use to get you to shed water weight in the first 3 weeks and get you all excited about their plan.
0 -
lithezebra wrote: »redraidergirl2009 wrote: »I hope you won't also be exercising low carb. Carbs are not bad.
Many people do fine on low carb while exercising, even keto. But generally, iirc, you have to wait until your body changes energy sources.
It took all of about 12 hours for my body to change energy sources, maybe because I was already eating a lower carb diet. It's fine with me if people want to eat high carb diets and find that it works for them. Since I started eating very low carb, and testing positive for ketones, I've been working harder when I do cardio, not running out of energy after 30 minutes or feeling like I just don't want to go to the gym. Low energy days were something I had a lot more of when I was eating more carbs. (And, whatever anyone else's experience, I might have felt more full eating carbs, but I feel more satiated eating fat. I'm a little concerned that I might not eat enough).
I'd be hard pressed to believe you just swapped in a 12 hr period- but I admittedly aim unfamiliar with how long it takes to ACTUALLY get to keto- it was my understanding it took several days.0 -
gettingfitformywedding wrote: »My mom and co worker have convinced me that a low carb diet is what I should follow to reach my weight loss goals. I've read the other forums and am not interested in the debate on whether low calorie or low carb is the better of two.. I've tried low carb, I did well on it but constantly felt hungry. I know different diets work for different people, but these two people in particular have lost significant weight following extreme low carb diet. My coworker has lost 120 pounds since January of this year when he went to the doctor for the first time in awhile and found out he was diabetic and weighed over 300 pounds. These two people are following a diet similar to Atkins.. only eating 20-30 carbs per day. I suppose my question is.. is this realistic? 20 carbs is not a lot at all especially when you're used to eating 200-250 carbs per day. I feel that even if I lose the weight, or in my coworkers situation that when/if he stops following the low carb regime OR even goes back to eating a daily recommended amount of carbs that he will likely gain it back. Advice?
7 day results-- down 8.8 pounds (water weight), but I feel great and will keep going. Thanks to everyone for their opinions and advice. I have found its very easy to eat at a calorie deficit while eating under 25g of carbs a day. This week I will start incorporating the gym into my routine and see how that goes. I will post my 14 day results!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions