So confused about carbs...
Options
Replies
-
You are WAY over-analyzing. Some people just tend to do better on lower carbs because it helps with their appetite and happens to agree with their preferences, other people tend to do better on the exact opposite.
If you look at my dinner today (and lunch for that matter), I'd imagine that's what a low carber sees themselves eating if they have an anxiety nightmare. My food choices include all kinds of grains, bread, pasta, all kinds of fruits and vegetables, sugar, pizza...etc. Did not stop me from losing weight. In fact it helped me lose weight because eating the foods I like made dieting easier for me. Down 77 pounds and counting.
1200 is already a low allowance by the way. If you don't want to increase it, at least make sure to eat back all of your exercise calories.0 -
Carbs are just carbs...they are one of the three macro-nutrients...they aren't the devil...they don't make you fat. There are all kinds of delicious and highly nutritious carbohydrates...beans are good for you (carbs)...lentils are good for you (carbs)...whole grains (think oats, brown rice, etc) are good for you (carbs)...potatoes and other root vegetables are good for you (carbs)...vegetables and fruit are good for you (carbs).
Most people who eat the SAD could stand to moderate they're carbohydrates and in particular could stand to make better choices...like less mainlining sugar and more whole grains, etc...but carbohydrates aren't some evil thing that needs to be feared. Don't by into the bull.0 -
Thanks everybody for your responses. I really appreciate hearing different opinions - especially when people disagree! It makes me think about all my options.amusedmonkey wrote: »1200 is already a low allowance by the way. If you don't want to increase it, at least make sure to eat back all of your exercise calories.
My BMR is only around 1300 calories. I'm short
When I'm more active, I do tend to increase my calories.
0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »If you haven't heard of the low carb / ketogenic diet before, it can be a very steep learning curve. People (like me) on the ketogenic diet will mostly be getting carbohydrate intake from vegetables and occasional low carb fruit like berries. I also use low carb grains, like almond flour for pizza crust, for example. Fat will make up the largest percentage of calories per day, and protein will be second--and in moderation.
Being on the ketogenic diet means restricting carbohydrate intake to such an extent (usually less than 50 g per day depending on how active you are) that the body enters a state of nutritional ketosis. There is a lot of evidence behind this lifestyle, and, if you are interested, you should check it out! https://authoritynutrition.com/10-benefits-of-low-carb-ketogenic-diets/
Also, regarding the ratios you mentioned, eating a diet of 20% fat is very low, even by USDA guidelines. I wouldn't needlessly limit your fat intake. Fat is a weight loss friendly macro-nutrient because it is satisfying, tasty, and causes very little insulin response from the body. This is one reason why the ketogenic diet is often used to prevent or treat diabetes. It helps people keep their blood glucose and corresponding insulin levels low.
Eh, I know a little bit about keto diets...I don't think it's for me. If I was very overweight and had more calories to play with then I would probably give it a go but, I had a little peek at your diary, and trying to stick to 1200 calories eating essentially meat and dairy sounds like I would be hungry all the time. Like I said, I don't really eat refined carbs, and I like the way fruit/veg carbs fill me up. They also do wonders for my skin.
Eh, sorry about my diary. It isn't accurate right now. I stopped logging over a year ago because I learned what foods had what carbs and could easily pick my foods without it. I realized I've lost an additional 6 lbs since I stopped. I've been feeling super skinny lately, so I thought I'd start logging and make sure I was eating enough. Some of that is because I've started intermittent fasting too.
I've been doing it 3 yrs, and it is a life changer for me. Sure it takes planning, research, and care in selecting foods, but the benefits are easy weight loss, appetite suppression, and disease prevention. Anyone who hasn't done it correctly and on a consistent basis for at least a few months can't speak to the benefits. It's probably not for you if you don't like a restrictive diet that severely limits processed foods.
While this might be true for you, it certain is not true for everyone. For me, carbs suppress my appetite more than anything. Counting calories for me is "easy weight loss". I already have severe food allergies to a lot of things, so restricting it more would "just be dumb" (according to my doctor when I asked about limiting certain food for weightloss).
Ketosis may be beneficial to those with certain medical conditions, but for the general population it does not prevent disease anymore than other forms of eating.
I could have written this myself. If I feel a "bottomless pit" coming on as a function of hormones, I know exactly what to do, pick one or more of the following to shut it down immediately and be full for the rest of the day: potatoes, semolina, apples, napoleon cake, oatmeal, ice cream. Keep in mind I'm someone who used to be on the highest end of pre-diabetes, which I managed to lower to normal with weight loss alone without carb control.
0 -
To me, you are over-thinking it, but I need something simple that doesn't bounce around a lot. It would drive me crazy to try to balance every macro, not mention the micros, and eat back or not eat back exercise calories. I decided to calculate what my caloric needs would be at my goal weight and subtracted 150 from that for weight loss, although I understand that I'd lose weight simply by eating to maintain a smaller body than I have right now. Anyway, I focus on nutrition and a varied diet, also the calories. Both aspects are equally important to me right now.0
-
2snakeswoman wrote: »To me, you are over-thinking it, but I need something simple that doesn't bounce around a lot. It would drive me crazy to try to balance every macro, not mention the micros, and eat back or not eat back exercise calories. I decided to calculate what my caloric needs would be at my goal weight and subtracted 150 from that for weight loss, although I understand that I'd lose weight simply by eating to maintain a smaller body than I have right now. Anyway, I focus on nutrition and a varied diet, also the calories. Both aspects are equally important to me right now.
I like this.0 -
Thanks everybody for your responses. I really appreciate hearing different opinions - especially when people disagree! It makes me think about all my options.amusedmonkey wrote: »1200 is already a low allowance by the way. If you don't want to increase it, at least make sure to eat back all of your exercise calories.
My BMR is only around 1300 calories. I'm short When I'm more active, I do tend to increase my calories.
Oh there's plenty of disagreement here, don't worry!
Just to make sure we are on the same page, your BMR is the amount of calories you would need to stay alive if you were bedridden. A more accurate number to base your goal off of would be your TDEE which would include all your day to day activity as well as your exercise.
MFP uses NEAT which is your BMR plus your. On exercise activity, which is why if you're working out you would eat back some of those calories.
For what it's worth, I'm also petite and lost my weight eating 1600-1900 cals a day.
0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »2snakeswoman wrote: »To me, you are over-thinking it, but I need something simple that doesn't bounce around a lot. It would drive me crazy to try to balance every macro, not mention the micros, and eat back or not eat back exercise calories. I decided to calculate what my caloric needs would be at my goal weight and subtracted 150 from that for weight loss, although I understand that I'd lose weight simply by eating to maintain a smaller body than I have right now. Anyway, I focus on nutrition and a varied diet, also the calories. Both aspects are equally important to me right now.
I like this.
I also like this! And a quick calculation based on my goal weight shows that I'm right about at that intake. Thanks!WinoGelato wrote: »Thanks everybody for your responses. I really appreciate hearing different opinions - especially when people disagree! It makes me think about all my options.amusedmonkey wrote: »1200 is already a low allowance by the way. If you don't want to increase it, at least make sure to eat back all of your exercise calories.
My BMR is only around 1300 calories. I'm short When I'm more active, I do tend to increase my calories.
Oh there's plenty of disagreement here, don't worry!
Just to make sure we are on the same page, your BMR is the amount of calories you would need to stay alive if you were bedridden. A more accurate number to base your goal off of would be your TDEE which would include all your day to day activity as well as your exercise.
MFP uses NEAT which is your BMR plus your. On exercise activity, which is why if you're working out you would eat back some of those calories.
For what it's worth, I'm also petite and lost my weight eating 1600-1900 cals a day.
I think we are on the same page. My TDEE is round about 1600-1700 (day-to-day activity, no workouts). I do eat more when I'm more active - this is a weird week for me because I am not at work (so less active) but I have been working out more. I think it is kind of balancing itself out. I will keep a close eye on my stats when I'm back at work and make sure I'm not underestimating my requirements.
Thanks!0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Thanks everybody for your responses. I really appreciate hearing different opinions - especially when people disagree! It makes me think about all my options.amusedmonkey wrote: »1200 is already a low allowance by the way. If you don't want to increase it, at least make sure to eat back all of your exercise calories.
My BMR is only around 1300 calories. I'm short When I'm more active, I do tend to increase my calories.
Oh there's plenty of disagreement here, don't worry!
Just to make sure we are on the same page, your BMR is the amount of calories you would need to stay alive if you were bedridden. A more accurate number to base your goal off of would be your TDEE which would include all your day to day activity as well as your exercise.
MFP uses NEAT which is your BMR plus your. On exercise activity, which is why if you're working out you would eat back some of those calories.
For what it's worth, I'm also petite and lost my weight eating 1600-1900 cals a day.
Oh if her BMR is 1300, her sedentary maintenance is under 1600. 1200 makes sense in this case.
Edit: never mind, didn't read far enough.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Thanks everybody for your responses. I really appreciate hearing different opinions - especially when people disagree! It makes me think about all my options.amusedmonkey wrote: »1200 is already a low allowance by the way. If you don't want to increase it, at least make sure to eat back all of your exercise calories.
My BMR is only around 1300 calories. I'm short When I'm more active, I do tend to increase my calories.
Oh there's plenty of disagreement here, don't worry!
Just to make sure we are on the same page, your BMR is the amount of calories you would need to stay alive if you were bedridden. A more accurate number to base your goal off of would be your TDEE which would include all your day to day activity as well as your exercise.
MFP uses NEAT which is your BMR plus your. On exercise activity, which is why if you're working out you would eat back some of those calories.
For what it's worth, I'm also petite and lost my weight eating 1600-1900 cals a day.
Oh if her BMR is 1300, her sedentary maintenance is under 1600. 1200 makes sense in this case.
Yeah I think so too, she just seems interested in understanding how this all works so I thought I would make sure she understood what BMR was and didn't think you had to eat below that in order to lose.
This OP seems like she's got it together though! Add in some extra protein and I think you'll be golden!
0 -
OP, this isn't rocket science. Many people in these forums overthink things. Stick to what you're doing and you'll get where you want to go.0
-
melonaulait wrote: »Eat as many carbs as you like. I always do over 60% and it's not slowing down my weight loss. The only thing that affects weight loss/gain is calories.
We're all different. "Eat as many carbs as you like" will have many people on insulin in short order.0 -
melonaulait wrote: »Eat as many carbs as you like. I always do over 60% and it's not slowing down my weight loss. The only thing that affects weight loss/gain is calories.
We're all different. "Eat as many carbs as you like" will have many people on insulin in short order.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/0 -
Reducing one's carb intake is a personal choice, perhaps a medical necessity. If you enjoy breads, pasta, rice, sweets, etc, they fit your goals, and you are pleased with your success, then continue to enjoy them. If you choose to reduce the amount or kinds of carbs you eat, then that's okay, too. Whatever you decide should be sustainable and keep you happy and healthy. It's easy to overthink "dieting" with so many believing their way is the only way and attacking others' choices. So if you want to have your cake and eat it, too...Go for it!0
-
I find that if I don't eat carbs that I don't have energy and stay hungry....
I aim for 50 percent carbs and am usually 45-50 percent. I make a pot of red quinoa or brown rice and will eat a cup or so for lunch every day....I also have an English muffin every day....and lots of fruit.
It works for me...I am down 40 plus pounds vet the past 4 months.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Thanks everybody for your responses. I really appreciate hearing different opinions - especially when people disagree! It makes me think about all my options.amusedmonkey wrote: »1200 is already a low allowance by the way. If you don't want to increase it, at least make sure to eat back all of your exercise calories.
My BMR is only around 1300 calories. I'm short When I'm more active, I do tend to increase my calories.
Oh there's plenty of disagreement here, don't worry!
Just to make sure we are on the same page, your BMR is the amount of calories you would need to stay alive if you were bedridden. A more accurate number to base your goal off of would be your TDEE which would include all your day to day activity as well as your exercise.
MFP uses NEAT which is your BMR plus your. On exercise activity, which is why if you're working out you would eat back some of those calories.
For what it's worth, I'm also petite and lost my weight eating 1600-1900 cals a day.
Oh if her BMR is 1300, her sedentary maintenance is under 1600. 1200 makes sense in this case.
Yeah I think so too, she just seems interested in understanding how this all works so I thought I would make sure she understood what BMR was and didn't think you had to eat below that in order to lose.
This OP seems like she's got it together though! Add in some extra protein and I think you'll be golden!
Thanks! I think that's the nicest thing I've heard all day! In fact, I'm not sure 'got it together' is a way in which I've ever been described!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »melonaulait wrote: »Eat as many carbs as you like. I always do over 60% and it's not slowing down my weight loss. The only thing that affects weight loss/gain is calories.
We're all different. "Eat as many carbs as you like" will have many people on insulin in short order.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html/
This was a great read, thanks.0 -
thorsmom01 wrote: »melonaulait wrote: »Eat as many carbs as you like. I always do over 60% and it's not slowing down my weight loss. The only thing that affects weight loss/gain is calories.
This 100%
Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit. Calories in - calories out.
Carbs don't cause people to gain. A calorie surplus would.
Calorie deficit- weight loss
Thank you both!
I understand that weight loss is CICO - I guess I'm more concerned about making sure I'm also nutritionally balanced. As well as weight loss, I'm thinking about the long-term - I guess it less about 'do I eat too many carbs?' than 'do i eat enough protein/fat?'. Does that make sense?
If you stop and think about it, does it make sense to think that your overall diet would be more nutritionally balanced if you cut your carbs so much that you had to worry that you were eating too much fruit, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains?
I agree that it's more helpful to think about whether you're getting enough protein and fat. It's usually not necessary to reduce carbs to 10% or 20% to be able to meet your protein and fat needs, but the bigger your calorie deficit, and hence the lower your calorie budget, the less protein and fat you're going to be getting when you base it on a % of overall calories. I believe it's better to set a goal in grams than in %.
24% (your recent actual %, not your goal) of 1200 calories from protein is 72 g of protein. People who believe you need 1 g per pound of BW or more per day are going to say that's far too low (unless you weigh 72 pounds or less). Personally, I go by the recommendation of the U.S. government (National Academies of Science), .8 g per kg of BW per day (although I tend to treat it as a minimum, and usually get more like 1 g/kg/d).
0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »melonaulait wrote: »Eat as many carbs as you like. I always do over 60% and it's not slowing down my weight loss. The only thing that affects weight loss/gain is calories.
This 100%
Weight loss comes from a calorie deficit. Calories in - calories out.
Carbs don't cause people to gain. A calorie surplus would.
Calorie deficit- weight loss
Thank you both!
I understand that weight loss is CICO - I guess I'm more concerned about making sure I'm also nutritionally balanced. As well as weight loss, I'm thinking about the long-term - I guess it less about 'do I eat too many carbs?' than 'do i eat enough protein/fat?'. Does that make sense?
If you stop and think about it, does it make sense to think that your overall diet would be more nutritionally balanced if you cut your carbs so much that you had to worry that you were eating too much fruit, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains?
No it doesn't. At all. But it never hurts to check
24% (your recent actual %, not your goal) of 1200 calories from protein is 72 g of protein. People who believe you need 1 g per pound of BW or more per day are going to say that's far too low (unless you weigh 72 pounds or less). Personally, I go by the recommendation of the U.S. government (National Academies of Science), .8 g per kg of BW per day (although I tend to treat it as a minimum, and usually get more like 1 g/kg/d).
Now this is interesting. Thank you.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 392 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions