Low Carb/Low Calorie Simultaneously
itsbakertime
Posts: 85 Member
Hey everyone!
I recently got back to my low carb roots and I have seen some great results the past week! I know that the initial success of such a diet is primarily water weight. This got me thinking, what are the effects of a reduced calorie low carb diet? I searched and searched online and couldn't find ANYTHING! I was really surprised! Everyone who had written anything only posted content pitting them together.
So, what do you think community? Who here has tried a low carb/low calorie diet? What happened and how did it work for you? According to health-calc.com, my daily energy expenditure is approximately 2,702kcal; I have been eating approximately 1100-1600kcal a day, give or take. What type of substantive changes to body fat should I anticipate with this type of eating style?
Thanks so much for the feedback guys! Have a fantastic day.
I recently got back to my low carb roots and I have seen some great results the past week! I know that the initial success of such a diet is primarily water weight. This got me thinking, what are the effects of a reduced calorie low carb diet? I searched and searched online and couldn't find ANYTHING! I was really surprised! Everyone who had written anything only posted content pitting them together.
So, what do you think community? Who here has tried a low carb/low calorie diet? What happened and how did it work for you? According to health-calc.com, my daily energy expenditure is approximately 2,702kcal; I have been eating approximately 1100-1600kcal a day, give or take. What type of substantive changes to body fat should I anticipate with this type of eating style?
Thanks so much for the feedback guys! Have a fantastic day.
0
Replies
-
Low-carb reduces appetite for most people. That means you reduce calories without needing extra willpower. Just about every low-carb study out there shows that low-carb is also low-calorie.
That's why we say eat till satiated. And it still works.
If you restrict calories below that level, you're fighting your biology, and you'll probably regain on the rebound. It may take years, but it happens to almost all who take that approach.0 -
Are you eating mostly protein? What is the macro breakdown (in grams) of how you are currently eating? What weight are you? What is your estimated body fat percentage?
On the extreme end, there is a PSMF (protein sparing modified fast), which is extremely low calories as well as low carb. It's not generally recommended, and it is not sustainable. Realistically, if you are looking to sustain a greater than two pounds a week weight loss, you should be working closely with a medical professional who knows your exact circumstances and will monitor your health as you do it.0 -
To lose weight you HAVE to eat low calories, I think it's a given. If you don't eat at a deficit you won't lose weight. Eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want, but people tend to eat less on low carb because they are less hungry.
If you use the MFP diary to track (and tracking is crucial to success IMO, to prevent carb creep and monitor protein/fat) you will set a calorie goal (at a deficit to lose weight) and then you will put in the percentage of fat/protein/carbs. Or the grams if you have premium.0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »To lose weight you HAVE to eat low calories, I think it's a given. If you don't eat at a deficit you won't lose weight. Eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want, but people tend to eat less on low carb because they are less hungry.
If you use the MFP diary to track (and tracking is crucial to success IMO, to prevent carb creep and monitor protein/fat) you will set a calorie goal (at a deficit to lose weight) and then you will put in the percentage of fat/protein/carbs. Or the grams if you have premium.
I would disagree with pretty much all of this. You don't have to eat low calories. Low carb can be a license to eat as much as they want (mostly because they want less because their hunger is in check).
You don't have to track or consciously control calories for a deficit. You don't have to even know how many calories you're eating, let alone have a calorie goal, to lose weight,
I lose weight eating amounts that few people would call low calories. I tend to average around 2300 calories a day when losing, which is above the amount MFP tells me to eat to maintain my weight. I eat as much as 2800 calories a day without gaining, which is far above what I should be eating without gaining weight.
Macros and hormones matter more than calories. Actually, for many people, once they get the carbs in check their hormones balance and everything else mindlessly falls into line. The farther you are from your ideal weight, the more dramatic your changes in appetite. When I was 60 pounds over my ideal weight, I could barely manage 1800 calories a day without being stuffed. Down around near my ideal weight (maybe 5-10 pounds over), I desire more like 2500 calories a day (which causes a slight creep down, still).
Calories take care of themselves. There's actually several threads on this here. Here are two that I started to try and build a definitive list of arguments for both sides. I am squarely in the "no calorie restriction" camp.0 -
Thanks so much for the feedback everyone. I am currently 216. Right now I'm aiming between 1100-1600 calories a day and I am staying below 60g of carbs a day. I am trying to eat approximately 30% protein, 55% fat, 15% carbs. I've done low carb before without dramatically lowering my calories. I know that in general, you are less hungry with low carb because of the protein and the consistent energy.
Maybe I am not articulating my question well.
During the initial stages of low carb (the first 1-2 weeks) you primarily lose water weight. If you are doing significant caloric reduction in conjunction with low carb, will you also lose fat or will that primarily be water? Will you lose faster than if you didn't actively try to reduce your calories?
Does that make more sense? I hope so. I appreciate you all weighing in.0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »To lose weight you HAVE to eat low calories, I think it's a given. If you don't eat at a deficit you won't lose weight. Eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want, but people tend to eat less on low carb because they are less hungry.
If you use the MFP diary to track (and tracking is crucial to success IMO, to prevent carb creep and monitor protein/fat) you will set a calorie goal (at a deficit to lose weight) and then you will put in the percentage of fat/protein/carbs. Or the grams if you have premium.
I would disagree with pretty much all of this. You don't have to eat low calories. Low carb can be a license to eat as much as they want (mostly because they want less because their hunger is in check).
You don't have to track or consciously control calories for a deficit. You don't have to even know how many calories you're eating, let alone have a calorie goal, to lose weight,
I lose weight eating amounts that few people would call low calories. I tend to average around 2300 calories a day when losing, which is above the amount MFP tells me to eat to maintain my weight. I eat as much as 2800 calories a day without gaining, which is far above what I should be eating without gaining weight.
Macros and hormones matter more than calories. Actually, for many people, once they get the carbs in check their hormones balance and everything else mindlessly falls into line. The farther you are from your ideal weight, the more dramatic your changes in appetite. When I was 60 pounds over my ideal weight, I could barely manage 1800 calories a day without being stuffed. Down around near my ideal weight (maybe 5-10 pounds over), I desire more like 2500 calories a day (which causes a slight creep down, still).
Calories take care of themselves. There's actually several threads on this here. Here are two that I started to try and build a definitive list of arguments for both sides. I am squarely in the "no calorie restriction" camp.
Thanks for the well thought out feedback. I see what you mean.0 -
I think the water weight weight lost in the first week is not as big as people make it out to be. I think others just say we are losing tonnes of water weight to make themselves feel better about their own diet.
. I really doubt it is more than a couple of pounds at most. For those lucky low carbers who lose 5-10 lbs in the first week or so, I am guessing only a small mount is water weight.
I kept my calories at about 1500 for 3-4 months when I went from almost 190 to 155lbs. I was losing 2-3 lbs per week. I did lose more in the first week or two but that is normal. Losing 2+lbs per week is still a great rate of loss. Losing too fast will lead to muscle loss and affect my metabolism.
I do have days that are low calorie (below 1200) but they are just low hunger days. I think not forcing low calories is the best bet.0 -
When you are losing water weight, that is not the only weight you are losing. It is just the majority. You can also be losing fat at the same time. It's just that the water weight makes it look like you're losing a lot faster than you really are, and you shouldn't be upset when that tapers off and your real rate of loss is less than you hoped.0
-
The water loss is predictable (sodium losses) and preventable (sodium intake). That loss gets people a little more enthusiastic in the beginning, but it's pretty much a one-time deal, and you're losing fat at the same time as long as there's a calorie deficit.
I don't know how much detail you want, but this stuff has been studied in detail and even modeled by computer. Kevin Hall created the model:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838532/
You can play with the model to predict your own rate of weight loss here:
https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/
There's no magic to calorie restriction. It will work for everyone. The difference with low-carb is in the hunger hormones (and insulin levels and maybe leptin sensitivity and long-term maintenance).
You could be underestimating the level of unconscious calorie reduction due to the appetite effects of low-carb. Here's a chart to give you an idea of how it works (example shows an initial 50% reduction in calories):
0 -
I've done low carb both ways, actually.
When I did the Dukan Diet (low carb/high protein) I did lose weight fairly successfully without counting anything. It was more about eating from a certain list of foods and having a rough idea of how many servings/day I could eat of other things (e.g. dairy, and a tiny amount of oat bran per day).
I am liking LCHF better though. This is actually the first time I've successfully lost weight while tracking on MFP. In the past, not counting usually seemed to work better for me. I only have a few more pounds to lose and am thinking about not tracking anymore. We'll see. When I started keto and joined this group, I was in round 3 of a 6-month Transformer DietBet and had just lost the second round so I wanted to maximize my odds of success. Otherwise I probably would have tried without tracking.0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »To lose weight you HAVE to eat low calories, I think it's a given. If you don't eat at a deficit you won't lose weight. Eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want, but people tend to eat less on low carb because they are less hungry.
If you use the MFP diary to track (and tracking is crucial to success IMO, to prevent carb creep and monitor protein/fat) you will set a calorie goal (at a deficit to lose weight) and then you will put in the percentage of fat/protein/carbs. Or the grams if you have premium.
I would disagree with pretty much all of this. You don't have to eat low calories. Low carb can be a license to eat as much as they want (mostly because they want less because their hunger is in check).
You don't have to track or consciously control calories for a deficit. You don't have to even know how many calories you're eating, let alone have a calorie goal, to lose weight,
I lose weight eating amounts that few people would call low calories. I tend to average around 2300 calories a day when losing, which is above the amount MFP tells me to eat to maintain my weight. I eat as much as 2800 calories a day without gaining, which is far above what I should be eating without gaining weight.
Macros and hormones matter more than calories. Actually, for many people, once they get the carbs in check their hormones balance and everything else mindlessly falls into line. The farther you are from your ideal weight, the more dramatic your changes in appetite. When I was 60 pounds over my ideal weight, I could barely manage 1800 calories a day without being stuffed. Down around near my ideal weight (maybe 5-10 pounds over), I desire more like 2500 calories a day (which causes a slight creep down, still).
Calories take care of themselves. There's actually several threads on this here. Here are two that I started to try and build a definitive list of arguments for both sides. I am squarely in the "no calorie restriction" camp.
I would call you a special case Fit_goat. Not everyone can eat half a cow a day and nothing else.
One of the MOST common reasons people don't lose weight on low carb is because they're eating too much. Not everyone is able to naturally eat at a calorie deficit because they're less hungry. In fact I would argue that once you start eating a high fat diet it's VERY easy to go over. Low carb is wonderful for your health, wonderful for controlling appetite but it is NOT magic. If you don't eat less than you burn you will NOT lose weight. Simple. For example, if I were eat 1900 calories a day @10g of carbs I would not (and do not) lose weight. If I eat 1550 cals 10g of carbs I do. I am not a unique case.
Macros are important, yes. But as a gram target, not as percentage. Alot of people fall into the trap of thinking they can eat 3000 calories a day if they eat 5%/20%75% (or whatever your targets are). Not true. Your macros in grams make up your calorie total. 19g carbs 97g protein and 120g fat is ALWAYS going to equal 1550 calories, therefor you are controlling your calorie intake, just choosing to count it differently.0 -
I would argue that if you're eating too much, your carbs are still too high. I would also say, that over a week's time, your unrestricted calorie consumption would hardly ever exceed your needs, and would most likely be under your needs, unless you are the special case. Remember the backbone of nearly all low-carb diets is to not count calories. Nearly all of them ask you to eat as much as you want to not be hungry, with limits on amounts of only certain types of foods (typically anything with carbs and often dairy). The inclusion of calorie counting is usually a "feature" people add into the diet because it makes them more comfortable. It is especially popular on MFP, because most people ended up here after starting by counting calories. So, they are keeping their old ways and trying something in addition. Few people are completely willing to throw out all their old beliefs and start from scratch.
It may well be true that you won't lose eating 1900 calories a day. But, it is likely also true that your weekly averages will be below 1900, even if you didn't bother consciously restricting. Will weight loss be as fast or as "consistent" (lol, as if it is ever) when you let your body do things on its own terms? Probably not. But, that doesn't mean it won't work. Calorie restriction is the last resort when all other adjustments have failed over a prolonged period.
I found there were times when my weight stopped moving. Usually there was something else going on, that I didn't know about. Maybe I was coming down with something. Maybe I was healing from an injury, hurting my neck exercising stalled my weight for a month both from the lack of ability to move like I normally do, but extra eating from the need for tissue repair. Starving myself to force weight loss would have only made things worse for my body. I have learned to trust the process.0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »To lose weight you HAVE to eat low calories, I think it's a given. If you don't eat at a deficit you won't lose weight. Eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want, but people tend to eat less on low carb because they are less hungry.
If you use the MFP diary to track (and tracking is crucial to success IMO, to prevent carb creep and monitor protein/fat) you will set a calorie goal (at a deficit to lose weight) and then you will put in the percentage of fat/protein/carbs. Or the grams if you have premium.
I would disagree with pretty much all of this. You don't have to eat low calories. Low carb can be a license to eat as much as they want (mostly because they want less because their hunger is in check).
You don't have to track or consciously control calories for a deficit. You don't have to even know how many calories you're eating, let alone have a calorie goal, to lose weight,
I lose weight eating amounts that few people would call low calories. I tend to average around 2300 calories a day when losing, which is above the amount MFP tells me to eat to maintain my weight. I eat as much as 2800 calories a day without gaining, which is far above what I should be eating without gaining weight.
Macros and hormones matter more than calories. Actually, for many people, once they get the carbs in check their hormones balance and everything else mindlessly falls into line. The farther you are from your ideal weight, the more dramatic your changes in appetite. When I was 60 pounds over my ideal weight, I could barely manage 1800 calories a day without being stuffed. Down around near my ideal weight (maybe 5-10 pounds over), I desire more like 2500 calories a day (which causes a slight creep down, still).
Calories take care of themselves. There's actually several threads on this here. Here are two that I started to try and build a definitive list of arguments for both sides. I am squarely in the "no calorie restriction" camp.
I would call you a special case Fit_goat. Not everyone can eat half a cow a day and nothing else.
One of the MOST common reasons people don't lose weight on low carb is because they're eating too much. Not everyone is able to naturally eat at a calorie deficit because they're less hungry. In fact I would argue that once you start eating a high fat diet it's VERY easy to go over. Low carb is wonderful for your health, wonderful for controlling appetite but it is NOT magic. If you don't eat less than you burn you will NOT lose weight. Simple. For example, if I were eat 1900 calories a day @10g of carbs I would not (and do not) lose weight. If I eat 1550 cals 10g of carbs I do. I am not a unique case.
Macros are important, yes. But as a gram target, not as percentage. Alot of people fall into the trap of thinking they can eat 3000 calories a day if they eat 5%/20%75% (or whatever your targets are). Not true. Your macros in grams make up your calorie total. 19g carbs 97g protein and 120g fat is ALWAYS going to equal 1550 calories, therefor you are controlling your calorie intake, just choosing to count it differently.
Last year's Meativore May begs to differ with you on the idea that only Goat can eat half a cow a day and be happy, as do a number of Dr. Salisbury's patients.
Ad Lib April also proved that most people can, in fact, eat to satiety and at least not gain, if not continue losing, if they take the time and effort to overcome the fear that has been instilled in us.
In my own experience, grams of carbs, alone, make the biggest difference, followed closely by the source of those carbs. I can get away with a few more, only if they're from animal sources. Otherwise, I stall out. When I eat only meat, which results in about 75% fat, my hunger matches my needs, and I lose weight even at calorie amounts that cause me to gain when I eat carbs. I recorded this for several weeks when I first did it, to get an idea of numbers, before I stopped, because I was consistently on target. My intake has almost never changed from about 1800-2000 calories since I started attempting to lose weight, but the macro changes have made all the difference in the world.0 -
I have counted calories from the start and I do see a trend to them going up and weight loss slowing down to a degree. But, even though I've only managed to lose 4 pounds since September, it was a surprisingly big difference in photos. So, I definitely believe that the scale just doesn't reflect the progress of fat loss as well as we've always been lead to think. I know 1 lb of fat is quite a decent volume, but, even considering that, I think my physical progress surpasses what the scale would have me believe. So I just don't think the idea of "losing weight" is actually the same as losing fat overall. And that the typical ideas we've come to understand about how to know if what you're doing is "working" or not aren't quite right. Certainly not as they pertain to our impact on a scale anyway.
I still count calories and I feel comfortable doing that because I've had times when I would have increased hunger (from sweeteners) that lead me to eat more. I felt actually hungry and if I weren't tracking, I don't know that I would've figured it out as quickly.
I do think that discontinuing that needs to be something I accomplish before I can feel secure about maintaining weight later on. Now that I've cut the sweeteners, I don't think I'd have any trouble naturally eating the right amount. But being so close to goal, I feel that my natural appetite might just keep me stable and not create the last bit of fat loss I need. So, I feel that I still need to be aware of where I am and that I need to make sure I have a deficit overall at the end of the week. I seem to stay stable at only about 1400, which should not happen. But, I am only 10 lbs to goal. My BMI is 23.4... But, I still have over 30% body fat. Too high. (Actually, I know strength training is my answer. But I'm being stubborn) 0 -
To lose weight you HAVE to eat low calories, I think it's a given. If you don't eat at a deficit you won't lose weight. Eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want, but people tend to eat less on low carb because they are less hungry.
The first time I did low carb, I did lose a bunch of weight (40lbs) eating and tracking over 3000 calories on average. Back in those days, it was nothing for me to eat 30 chicken wings (naked) by myself. I ate a lot of bunless cheeseburgers too, but I never went over 20 grams of carbs (total, not net).
I don't recommend doing this because it helped me develop a voracious appetite which became very detrimental when I came off the wagon. However, it is possible to lose weight while eating at a calorie surplus.
@itsbakertime I now find that with LCHF, I am able to stay within my MFP limits even though I don't really count that as a high priority goal anymore.0 -
Re needing to eat at a deficit to lose weight, it's true but I'm also one who's found I can eat more calories when eating low carb and still lose weight so for me carb level makes a bigger difference than size of the deficit (along with lower carbs making it easier to feel satisfied at lower calorie levels). It's crazy the difference it makes for me. I could eat 1200 calories a day at a higher carb level and struggle to lose anything; I can eat 1350 at a lower carb level and lose 17 lbs in about 10 weeks even starting just 17 lbs from goal.0
-
I think the water weight weight lost in the first week is not as big as people make it out to be. I think others just say we are losing tonnes of water weight to make themselves feel better about their own diet.. I really doubt it is more than a couple of pounds at most. For those lucky low carbers who lose 5-10 lbs in the first week or so, I am guessing only a small mount is water weight.
I kept my calories at about 1500 for 3-4 months when I went from almost 190 to 155lbs. I was losing 2-3 lbs per week. I did lose more in the first week or two but that is normal. Losing 2+lbs per week is still a great rate of loss. Losing too fast will lead to muscle loss and affect my metabolism.
I do have days that are low calorie (below 1200) but they are just low hunger days. I think not forcing low calories is the best bet.
Thanks! That helps a lot. I have lost 8lbs so far in the past 6 days! It's nice to think it's not all water
0 -
When you are losing water weight, that is not the only weight you are losing. It is just the majority. You can also be losing fat at the same time. It's just that the water weight makes it look like you're losing a lot faster than you really are, and you shouldn't be upset when that tapers off and your real rate of loss is less than you hoped.
Thank you! I'll try not to be disappointed.0 -
The water loss is predictable (sodium losses) and preventable (sodium intake). That loss gets people a little more enthusiastic in the beginning, but it's pretty much a one-time deal, and you're losing fat at the same time as long as there's a calorie deficit.
I don't know how much detail you want, but this stuff has been studied in detail and even modeled by computer. Kevin Hall created the model:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838532/
You can play with the model to predict your own rate of weight loss here:
https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/
There's no magic to calorie restriction. It will work for everyone. The difference with low-carb is in the hunger hormones (and insulin levels and maybe leptin sensitivity and long-term maintenance).
You could be underestimating the level of unconscious calorie reduction due to the appetite effects of low-carb. Here's a chart to give you an idea of how it works (example shows an initial 50% reduction in calories):
Yay! I am a sucker for any sort of calculators. I'll take a look at this information. Thank you.0 -
macchiatto wrote: »I've done low carb both ways, actually.
When I did the Dukan Diet (low carb/high protein) I did lose weight fairly successfully without counting anything. It was more about eating from a certain list of foods and having a rough idea of how many servings/day I could eat of other things (e.g. dairy, and a tiny amount of oat bran per day).
I am liking LCHF better though. This is actually the first time I've successfully lost weight while tracking on MFP. In the past, not counting usually seemed to work better for me. I only have a few more pounds to lose and am thinking about not tracking anymore. We'll see. When I started keto and joined this group, I was in round 3 of a 6-month Transformer DietBet and had just lost the second round so I wanted to maximize my odds of success. Otherwise I probably would have tried without tracking.
Congrats on your weight loss!0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »I have counted calories from the start and I do see a trend to them going up and weight loss slowing down to a degree. But, even though I've only managed to lose 4 pounds since September, it was a surprisingly big difference in photos. So, I definitely believe that the scale just doesn't reflect the progress of fat loss as well as we've always been lead to think. I know 1 lb of fat is quite a decent volume, but, even considering that, I think my physical progress surpasses what the scale would have me believe. So I just don't think the idea of "losing weight" is actually the same as losing fat overall. And that the typical ideas we've come to understand about how to know if what you're doing is "working" or not aren't quite right. Certainly not as they pertain to our impact on a scale anyway.
I still count calories and I feel comfortable doing that because I've had times when I would have increased hunger (from sweeteners) that lead me to eat more. I felt actually hungry and if I weren't tracking, I don't know that I would've figured it out as quickly.
I do think that discontinuing that needs to be something I accomplish before I can feel secure about maintaining weight later on. Now that I've cut the sweeteners, I don't think I'd have any trouble naturally eating the right amount. But being so close to goal, I feel that my natural appetite might just keep me stable and not create the last bit of fat loss I need. So, I feel that I still need to be aware of where I am and that I need to make sure I have a deficit overall at the end of the week. I seem to stay stable at only about 1400, which should not happen. But, I am only 10 lbs to goal. My BMI is 23.4... But, I still have over 30% body fat. Too high. (Actually, I know strength training is my answer. But I'm being stubborn)
You make an excellent point. I really do need to remember the non-scale motivators. Just the other day I saw a picture of me from last March at my highest weight. I have lost about 30lbs since then. I could reaaaaaally see the difference by comparing photos. Sometimes you don't notices the amount of progress when you're focused on a specific number. Congrats on your losses! 0 -
macchiatto wrote: »Re needing to eat at a deficit to lose weight, it's true but I'm also one who's found I can eat more calories when eating low carb and still lose weight so for me carb level makes a bigger difference than size of the deficit (along with lower carbs making it easier to feel satisfied at lower calorie levels). It's crazy the difference it makes for me. I could eat 1200 calories a day at a higher carb level and struggle to lose anything; I can eat 1350 at a lower carb level and lose 17 lbs in about 10 weeks even starting just 17 lbs from goal.
Ain't that the truth!0 -
To lose weight you HAVE to eat low calories, I think it's a given. If you don't eat at a deficit you won't lose weight. Eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want, but people tend to eat less on low carb because they are less hungry.
The first time I did low carb, I did lose a bunch of weight (40lbs) eating and tracking over 3000 calories on average. Back in those days, it was nothing for me to eat 30 chicken wings (naked) by myself. I ate a lot of bunless cheeseburgers too, but I never went over 20 grams of carbs (total, not net).
I don't recommend doing this because it helped me develop a voracious appetite which became very detrimental when I came off the wagon. However, it is possible to lose weight while eating at a calorie surplus.
@itsbakertime I now find that with LCHF, I am able to stay within my MFP limits even though I don't really count that as a high priority goal anymore.
Great advice. Thank you! Thirty chicken wings is impressive!
I have been eating about 15 from Wingstop. That was my vice this week. 0 -
EbonyDahlia wrote: »To lose weight you HAVE to eat low calories, I think it's a given. If you don't eat at a deficit you won't lose weight.
While most here won't disagree with the fact that you have to consume less than you burn in order to lose weight, that's different from eating low calorie. Low calorie generally equates to an amount of food that is half or less your TDEE -- for most people, you're looking at 1200 calories or less.
A good example is the OP:my daily energy expenditure is approximately 2,702kcal; I have been eating approximately 1100-1600kcal a day
With a TDEE of 2,700 calories, 1100-1600 is very much low calorie. She can go all the way up to 2,200 calories and still lose a pound a week. 2,200 calories is a deficit, but very few people would consider it low calorie.Eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want, but people tend to eat less on low carb because they are less hungry.
Okay...is there some place that actually espouses "eat as much as you want" in the sense that the people who argue this point are actually referring to? All of the resources I've seen say to eat to satiety and that counting calories is not necessary, due to the fact that low carb almost universally reduces appetite and brings it in line with actual needs. Yet the "eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want" is nearly always said in a way that alludes to someone eating in excess of their caloric needs.
You can "eat as much as you want" on low carb, because in the vast majority of cases, "as much as you want" is reduced and is below your TDEE and you no longer want to eat in excess.If you use the MFP diary to track (and tracking is crucial to success IMO, to prevent carb creep and monitor protein/fat) you will set a calorie goal (at a deficit to lose weight) and then you will put in the percentage of fat/protein/carbs. Or the grams if you have premium.
I will agree that tracking is crucial if you're prone to letting non-compliant stuff back in or getting carb creep. Most people find that they don't have to watch calories so much, as long as they keep carbs (and in some cases, protein) in check.itsbakertime wrote: »Thanks so much for the feedback everyone. I am currently 216. Right now I'm aiming between 1100-1600 calories a day and I am staying below 60g of carbs a day. I am trying to eat approximately 30% protein, 55% fat, 15% carbs. I've done low carb before without dramatically lowering my calories. I know that in general, you are less hungry with low carb because of the protein and the consistent energy.
Maybe I am not articulating my question well.
During the initial stages of low carb (the first 1-2 weeks) you primarily lose water weight. If you are doing significant caloric reduction in conjunction with low carb, will you also lose fat or will that primarily be water? Will you lose faster than if you didn't actively try to reduce your calories?
Does that make more sense? I hope so. I appreciate you all weighing in.
The big initial weight losses are actually largely water. You still will only lose a couple of pounds of fat (and a little non-water LBM) in those first couple of weeks. That's why the amount varies so greatly between people.
On paper, using the typical CICO math, you'd lose more weight by restricting calories more. However, in reality, that's rarely actually the case, and more often, you're miserable in the process, because you're consuming so far under your caloric needs that you're missing key nutrients and fuel in general.
In the case of LCHF, the big key nutrients in the first couple of weeks are the electrolytes, particularly sodium. When you lack sodium, you get what's commonly known as "keto flu." It's been discussed ad nauseum in this forum, so I'll spare the details.
Generally speaking, there's not usually a need to restrict calories that far, and with that high of a caloric intake window (seriously, 2,200 calories is a lot of food on LCHF, and you'd still lose around a pound a week), and you'll very likely find in the long run that you struggle to maintain as much of a deficit as you're going for, as hormones start working to bring your intake up.
I recommend trusting the system for a while and see how it works for you. Keep track of that upper calorie goal (the 2,200 calories) and your carb limit, and just eat to satiety and see where you fall (track, but don't restrict). Fat gain and loss aren't overnight processes, so you'll be able to make changes long before things get out of hand.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »To lose weight you HAVE to eat low calories, I think it's a given. If you don't eat at a deficit you won't lose weight.
While most here won't disagree with the fact that you have to consume less than you burn in order to lose weight, that's different from eating low calorie. Low calorie generally equates to an amount of food that is half or less your TDEE -- for most people, you're looking at 1200 calories or less.
A good example is the OP:my daily energy expenditure is approximately 2,702kcal; I have been eating approximately 1100-1600kcal a day
With a TDEE of 2,700 calories, 1100-1600 is very much low calorie. She can go all the way up to 2,200 calories and still lose a pound a week. 2,200 calories is a deficit, but very few people would consider it low calorie.Eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want, but people tend to eat less on low carb because they are less hungry.
Okay...is there some place that actually espouses "eat as much as you want" in the sense that the people who argue this point are actually referring to? All of the resources I've seen say to eat to satiety and that counting calories is not necessary, due to the fact that low carb almost universally reduces appetite and brings it in line with actual needs. Yet the "eating low carb is not a license to eat as much as you want" is nearly always said in a way that alludes to someone eating in excess of their caloric needs.
You can "eat as much as you want" on low carb, because in the vast majority of cases, "as much as you want" is reduced and is below your TDEE and you no longer want to eat in excess.If you use the MFP diary to track (and tracking is crucial to success IMO, to prevent carb creep and monitor protein/fat) you will set a calorie goal (at a deficit to lose weight) and then you will put in the percentage of fat/protein/carbs. Or the grams if you have premium.
I will agree that tracking is crucial if you're prone to letting non-compliant stuff back in or getting carb creep. Most people find that they don't have to watch calories so much, as long as they keep carbs (and in some cases, protein) in check.itsbakertime wrote: »Thanks so much for the feedback everyone. I am currently 216. Right now I'm aiming between 1100-1600 calories a day and I am staying below 60g of carbs a day. I am trying to eat approximately 30% protein, 55% fat, 15% carbs. I've done low carb before without dramatically lowering my calories. I know that in general, you are less hungry with low carb because of the protein and the consistent energy.
Maybe I am not articulating my question well.
During the initial stages of low carb (the first 1-2 weeks) you primarily lose water weight. If you are doing significant caloric reduction in conjunction with low carb, will you also lose fat or will that primarily be water? Will you lose faster than if you didn't actively try to reduce your calories?
Does that make more sense? I hope so. I appreciate you all weighing in.
The big initial weight losses are actually largely water. You still will only lose a couple of pounds of fat (and a little non-water LBM) in those first couple of weeks. That's why the amount varies so greatly between people.
On paper, using the typical CICO math, you'd lose more weight by restricting calories more. However, in reality, that's rarely actually the case, and more often, you're miserable in the process, because you're consuming so far under your caloric needs that you're missing key nutrients and fuel in general.
In the case of LCHF, the big key nutrients in the first couple of weeks are the electrolytes, particularly sodium. When you lack sodium, you get what's commonly known as "keto flu." It's been discussed ad nauseum in this forum, so I'll spare the details.
Generally speaking, there's not usually a need to restrict calories that far, and with that high of a caloric intake window (seriously, 2,200 calories is a lot of food on LCHF, and you'd still lose around a pound a week), and you'll very likely find in the long run that you struggle to maintain as much of a deficit as you're going for, as hormones start working to bring your intake up.
I recommend trusting the system for a while and see how it works for you. Keep track of that upper calorie goal (the 2,200 calories) and your carb limit, and just eat to satiety and see where you fall (track, but don't restrict). Fat gain and loss aren't overnight processes, so you'll be able to make changes long before things get out of hand.
Thank you for the well articulated feedback. I want to aim to lose at least 2lbs a week because I am going to be a bridesmaid in a wedding on May 1st and I would like to be under 200lbs if possible. That being said, I'll keep everything you said in mind! I usually eat closer to 1400, but I let my hunger for the day dictate how many calories I have. Ultimately though, I'm just trying to stay under 60-65g of carbs a day.0 -
The beauty of the internet is there are so many people with so many different experiences and much knowledge. I still maintain that the most common reason people fail on low carb is that they eat too much. There is not alot of difference between 1600 cals of food and 2000 cals of food, and if you're not restricting calories it is often the difference between success and failure (if you are eating this way to lose weight, not just for health benefits). For people who have overeaten for 20 years, it's unlikely that they will just naturally eat the amount they need to, to lose weight. I would consider myself experienced. I've read all the things, I've put it into practice for 2 years. It is very possible to stay under 20g of carbs a day and still overeat. I can overeat and have 6g of carbs. During the week I'm strict, I stay under 1600 cals, I don't eat until lunch time and I am seldom full. On a Satuday, I eat when I'm hungry, I eat until I'm satisfied, but I still track. Saturdays are usually quite high. If I were to do this every day (and some weeks I'm hungry and do so), I would not lose weight (and don't). Many of us do not "naturally" eat less. If you can, and do, then great, but I worry when I see newbies told (here and on FB) that they don't need to track calories.0
-
Google Protein Sparing Modified Fast (PSMF). That's Low carb, low fat, low calorie, high protein. It's not a diet that can be stayed on for very long, but it's a good jumpstarter for many people.0
-
Thank you for the well articulated feedback. I want to aim to lose at least 2lbs a week because I am going to be a bridesmaid in a wedding on May 1st and I would like to be under 200lbs if possible. That being said, I'll keep everything you said in mind! I usually eat closer to 1400, but I let my hunger for the day dictate how many calories I have. Ultimately though, I'm just trying to stay under 60-65g of carbs a day.Google Protein Sparing Modified Fast (PSMF). That's Low carb, low fat, low calorie, high protein. It's not a diet that can be stayed on for very long, but it's a good jumpstarter for many people.
*sigh* you're going to hear me say something I almost never do. You might be in a position to do a PSMF. This is "good" advice for your situation.
Google "Rapid Fat Loss Handbook Lyle Mcdonald". There are probably places to find the PDF version online, for free, but they are of dubious legality. If you look hard enough, you'll probably find what you seek. But, you should be able to afford to buy it.
Here is a direct link to where you can buy the book.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss-handbook#purchase (It is $27 for the PDF bundle... like I said, not massively expensive).
Now, the protocol described by Lyle is NOT my recommended route for most people. It is not "safe" and you could hurt yourself. Lyle does a good job of making is less dangerous than going it on your own. It is only recommended for very specific circumstances, one of which is an upcoming special event (like a wedding) where you have a hard deadline to drop as much weight as possible to impress.
I hate recommending this path for people. If you didn't have a hard deadline that was so close, I wouldn't even consider it. But, it does work. It will be miserable and you need a lot of discipline to do it.0 -
-
Thank you for the well articulated feedback. I want to aim to lose at least 2lbs a week because I am going to be a bridesmaid in a wedding on May 1st and I would like to be under 200lbs if possible. That being said, I'll keep everything you said in mind! I usually eat closer to 1400, but I let my hunger for the day dictate how many calories I have. Ultimately though, I'm just trying to stay under 60-65g of carbs a day.Google Protein Sparing Modified Fast (PSMF). That's Low carb, low fat, low calorie, high protein. It's not a diet that can be stayed on for very long, but it's a good jumpstarter for many people.
*sigh* you're going to hear me say something I almost never do. You might be in a position to do a PSMF. This is "good" advice for your situation.
Google "Rapid Fat Loss Handbook Lyle Mcdonald". There are probably places to find the PDF version online, for free, but they are of dubious legality. If you look hard enough, you'll probably find what you seek. But, you should be able to afford to buy it.
Here is a direct link to where you can buy the book.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss-handbook#purchase (It is $27 for the PDF bundle... like I said, not massively expensive).
Now, the protocol described by Lyle is NOT my recommended route for most people. It is not "safe" and you could hurt yourself. Lyle does a good job of making is less dangerous than going it on your own. It is only recommended for very specific circumstances, one of which is an upcoming special event (like a wedding) where you have a hard deadline to drop as much weight as possible to impress.
I hate recommending this path for people. If you didn't have a hard deadline that was so close, I wouldn't even consider it. But, it does work. It will be miserable and you need a lot of discipline to do it.
Thank you. I'll look into that. Reaching 199lbs would be ideal, but if it isn't possible without hating life, I may relax that. Maybe something like 205lbs would be more reasonable. I have about 8 weeks. If I lose 2lbs a week, I'll be right around that mark. *fingers crossed* Either way, I'll definitely check out the information provided. If I don't hit 199lbs by then, that's okay. I'm in another wedding in August too! lol0
This discussion has been closed.