Viewing the message boards in:

low carb Does work!!!!

1246712

Replies

  • Posts: 2,187 Member
    Why is this being treated as anything other than another mean people thread (tm)? It's yet another post aimed to stop people from giving advice, presented without the context of this mythical other thread, designed to do nothing more than shut down those of us trying to help. This should have been posted to the other thread instead of as a separate post berating everyone.

    And it's not even Friday!
  • Posts: 78 Member
    tlflag1620 wrote: »

    Low carb means any kind of meat in the market, most veggies, many fruits, any full fat dairy product, dark chocolate, seeds and nuts of all kinds. Okay, 85% of the "junk food" in the grocery store is off limits, but I'd have a hard time fitting soda, chips, and candy into my calorie limits regardless. Dining out is easy - some kind of meat plus salad and veggies. It's as hard or as easy as you make it.

    I regularly eat berries with heavy cream. I just skip the shortcake. Leaves room for more berries and more cream ;).

    This!!!!
  • Posts: 306 Member
    Noel_57 wrote: »
    Really?
    1 cup cooked spaghetti - 200 calories
    2 tbsp butter - 200 calories

    Which would be more filling?

    Lmao.
  • Posts: 112 Member
    I was on a so called "low carb" diet and I have never been fatter. I think it really does depend on what works for you. I enjoy carbs such as potatoes, rice, beans and whole foods.
  • Posts: 17,456 Member
    In for what's wrong with high protein if no medical issues
  • Posts: 15,532 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »

    Be right over!

    You're bringing the wine, right?
  • Posts: 13,454 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »

    You're bringing the wine, right?

    No that's me.
  • Posts: 6,208 Member
    missh1967 wrote: »

    And ketchup = comfort food.

    My friend is Czech and she puts ketchup on everything. EVERYTHING!
  • Posts: 15,532 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    No that's me.

    :laugh:

    I better get some more groceries! @queenliz99 must be bringing the ice cream
  • Posts: 14,517 Member
    tlflag1620 wrote: »

    Jut trying to figure out why she's making a distinction between LC and LCHF. I genuinely don't understand. A LC diet that is also low in fat, is by default going to be high in protein, which is not good. LC should be high fat. Just waiting to see where Stef is going with this, lol.

    I believe it stems from this comment........

    You might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar ou might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar very little added fat..

    Aahhh, I see where you are confused. Back in the 1970's a low calorie diet was either low fat or low carb. An elimination diet was the easiest way to count calories before the help of websites like this one. But most people today realize that lower calorie diet isn't ALWAYS low fat. This is old fashioned.

    Some people need to choose to lower fat (reflux, gallbladder, etc). Fat is very filling for lots of folks, whether they eat carbs or not.

    You changed 2 macros.......reduced carbs a great deal and added more fat. Was it your low fat diet that wasn't filling....or was it the high(er) carbs that triggered hunger?
  • This content has been removed.
  • Posts: 78 Member
    And by the way...I always eat something on my break cause I have a boring desk job and I'm a huge foodie and when I get to have a snack I look more forward to my breaks.. It's ten minutes so a handful of seeds or almonds does the trick... It's a mind thing isn't that why were all here??
  • Posts: 1,358 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Just straight butter?

    Didn't say it would be particularly appealing by itself (neither would plain pasta, tho), but yes. A couple Tbsps of butter would be more filling (and would keep me full longer) than a cup of pasta. May not be as much volume, but really neither is enough volume to "fill" me up. The butter would have a lot more staying power tho. With the pasta I'd be hangry two hours later.

  • Posts: 13,454 Member
    And by the way...I always eat something on my break cause I have a boring desk job and I'm a huge foodie and when I get to have a snack I look more forward to my breaks.. It's ten minutes so a handful of seeds or almonds does the trick... It's a mind thing isn't that why were all here??

    Have you tried getting up and taking a lap around the building on those 10 minute breaks? If you truly aren't hungry and are eating out of boredom, I find that getting up and moving does more for me than eating a snack, no matter what the snack is.
  • Posts: 661 Member
    Alluminati wrote: »

    My friend is Czech and she puts ketchup on everything. EVERYTHING!
    Well, I am Yugoslavian. That may explain my love of ketchup? LOL I do limit it, of course, because it's high in sugar and salt. *sigh*

    I cannot get enough ketchup packets if/when I get fries at a fast food joint. Holy hell. Never enough.
  • Posts: 78 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Have you tried getting up and taking a lap around the building on those 10 minute breaks? If you truly aren't hungry and are eating out of boredom, I find that getting up and moving does more for me than eating a snack, no matter what the snack is.

    I bike to work everyday and get lots of excersise, I mountain bike once a week and have a personal trainer that I hired two weeks ago imagine that, that keeps me on my toes.
  • Posts: 1,358 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »

    " It just upsets me that some people on here think they're way is the absolute answer and it's not." from the OP and there is an absolute answer CI<CO.....going low carb doesn't guarantee weight loss.
    not all of them

    Yes... to lose weight CI<CO. I don't think anyone is disputing that. For some (not all, and I think I and the OP have acknowledged this) LC makes reducing CI much, much easier. CICO is not a method. It is a mathematical idea. Whether you create CI<CO by going low carb, by going vegan, by weighing and measuring and counting, etc, yes, you still need to create a deficit to lose weight. There is more than one way to create that deficit.

    Which LC diets that are not high fat are you referring to?
  • Posts: 1,358 Member
    TeaBea wrote: »

    I believe it stems from this comment........

    You might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar ou might not have to restrict carbs for satiety. I do. I used to eat lots of whole grains, veggies and fruit, modest amounts of lean meats and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added sugar very little added fat..

    Aahhh, I see where you are confused. Back in the 1970's a low calorie diet was either low fat or low carb. An elimination diet was the easiest way to count calories before the help of websites like this one. But most people today realize that lower calorie diet isn't ALWAYS low fat. This is old fashioned.

    Some people need to choose to lower fat (reflux, gallbladder, etc). Fat is very filling for lots of folks, whether they eat carbs or not.

    You changed 2 macros.......reduced carbs a great deal and added more fat. Was it your low fat diet that wasn't filling....or was it the high(er) carbs that triggered hunger?

    I said low fat or fat free *dairy*. My diet previously was between 20-30% fat. Not super low fat by any stretch. I know that if and when I go over 100g of carbs in a day, I start feeling that vague hunger and the cravings come back. This is while keeping fat still over 50% of my diet. So, no I wasn't on a "low fat" diet, just lowER fat, and yeah, even getting ample fat, carbs cause me hunger. Don't know why that might be, but I am glad to have figured it out. It may or may not be the case for any other given person.
  • Posts: 13,454 Member
    tlflag1620 wrote: »

    Yes... to lose weight CI<CO. I don't think anyone is disputing that. For some (not all, and I think I and the OP have acknowledged this) LC makes reducing CI much, much easier. CICO is not a method. It is a mathematical idea. Whether you create CI<CO by going low carb, by going vegan, by weighing and measuring and counting, etc, yes, you still need to create a deficit to lose weight. There is more than one way to create that deficit.

    Which LC diets that are not high fat are you referring to?

    I agree that the way of creating the deficit is largely up to the individual to determine what will work best for them.

    Couldn't a person be LC and High Protein? I'm not saying it is advisable or that there is a common approach, I'm just assuming that with three macros to play with, if you reduce one, you could increase either of the other two, right?

  • Posts: 13,454 Member

    I bike to work everyday and get lots of excersise, I mountain bike once a week and have a personal trainer that I hired two weeks ago imagine that, that keeps me on my toes.

    Okay...

    I wasn't suggesting you aren't exercising in other ways. It was a simple question, something that I have found useful for myself.

    As much as I love sarcasm, I don't think it is particularly warranted here.
  • Posts: 661 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Couldn't a person be LC and High Protein? I'm not saying it is advisable or that there is a common approach, I'm just assuming that with three macros to play with, if you reduce one, you could increase either of the other two, right?

    Yes! I fluctuate my carbs and proteins far more than fat. I like to keep my fat intake no more than 20%, preferably much less, and I'm ok with increasing protein (more common) or carbs to keep fat intake in check.

    It means I get to eat more!
This discussion has been closed.