low carb Does work!!!!

Options
13468918

Replies

  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    I did low carb for over a year and it worked as advertised. I lost the weight and wasn't hungry but ultimately I gained it all back and then some. The reason? Restrictive diets are boring to me and ultimately my cravings for (literally) forbidden fruits got to be too much. Low carb means saying goodbye to 85% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant. No thanks. Last night we had homemade strawberry shortcake with fresh strawberries. I adjusted my lunch and exercise to fit it in calorie wise. Pretty easy to do and IMO, life's too short to miss out on things like that.

    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 sounds like lchf...not just low carb.

    Not being snarky, but low carb is supposed to be high fat. When you reduce carbs (as a percentage) you obviously need to replace them with something else. Too much protein can have negative health consequences. So carbs get replaced with fats.

    You don't sound snarky at all but you do sound coy

    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?
  • domgibson88
    domgibson88 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    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??
  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Noel_57 wrote: »
    I think a major drawback of flour and flour-related products is that they are very calorically dense, so you get very little food in exchange for a tremendous amount of calories.
    Really?
    1 cup cooked spaghetti - 200 calories
    2 tbsp butter - 200 calories

    Which would be more filling?

    For me? The butter.

    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.

  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    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.
  • missh1967
    missh1967 Posts: 661 Member
    Options
    Alluminati wrote: »
    missh1967 wrote: »
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Butter on pasta, now we're talking!

    And ketchup = comfort food.

    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.
  • domgibson88
    domgibson88 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    Options
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    So you ate less than you burned (CICO) while choosing foods that met your satiety needs?

    I think her point (and I suspect you understand this, even if you want to play coy) is that for her, and many others, restricting carbs helps with satiety, making it easier to create a deficit without going hungry. I think she realizes that she ate less than she burned, she's just saying that LCHF made it easier for her to do that.

    /end thread indeed.

    But this is the thing you don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety, I went low carb 4 or 5 years ago and it was horrible...absolutely horrible...I never had that satisfied feeling....and by carbs I mean starches, I ate lots of veggies.

    But after coming here and reading I realized it was okay to eat potatoes and white rice and pasta and I was so very happy

    Even to this day I eat more protein and fats then carbs and I am "satisfied" and guess what lost weight and maintained....
    So, I'm sick of when people on here say they are struggling and someone on here suggests low carb and then another person berates them and says it's all about calories eat as much as you want but stay within the calories but heres the thing, did that and could not stay within my calories because carbs don't keep me satiated....they satisfy for an hour then I'm hungry again.. For example I used to have cheerios for breakfast but by first break at work (930) I was starving and usually grabbed a cookie or bag of chips...now I have 3 scrambled eggs with salsa (more calories) but I'm good till lunch!!I may have a small healthy snack like some Spitz or a handful of almonds but that's it!!!Now I'm not saying this works for everyone but I've lost 6 pounds in 2 and a half weeks doing this, it's working for me...so when someone on here suggests low care it is a VALID suggestion...the whole "eat whatever you want and stay within calorie goal" is not the ultimate answer so don't be quick to judge someone's suggestion.. Different lifestyles work for different people.

    I bolded what was the actual problem for you. How about grabbing something low calorie instead of cookies and chips?
    BTW. cookies and chips? Loooooots of fat.

    What I've said on here many times when I get to The point where I'm starving I have no self control and go for unhealthy stuff, eating a low carb high fat meal allows me to not feel that way and I can get away with a handful of almonds or a healthy snack till I get to lunch cause at break, I am still satiated from breakfast.....

    but you didn't have to go low carb for that all you had to do was plan ahead for what you knew was coming and pack yogurt, fruit, veggies etc to snack on...

    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 very little added fat. Cutting back on obvious "junk" (soda, chips, cookies, etc) helped, but not enough. I still struggled with hunger much of the time. When I dropped the grains and sugary fruit (keeping low sugar and savory fruit), started favoring fibrous veggies rather than starchy ones, switched to fattier cuts of meat and whole eggs, switched to full fat dairy, and increased the added fat (good fats like butter, lard, and bacon drippings), my hunger diminished in a big way. I was able to make more rational decisions and trust my hunger signals. Yes, I was obviously in a calorie deficit, so I lost weight. But for the first time in my life I was able to easily stick to that deficit long enough. I wasn't fighting hunger all the time. You may do well on a higher carb diet. Not everyone does.

    Yogurt (at least the low fat kind, full fat regular or Greek yogurt is okay for me, in small doses), fruit, starchy veggies, grains (even "whole" grains)... These fuel my hunger. I'd eat those, find myself still starving, and reach for more.

    did you miss the part where I said I eat more fats and protein but don't feel that going low carb is the end all to be all...it does help with weight loss esp at first but you can up protein and fats without sacrificing carbs to a degree that you are "restricting"

    I eat lots of meat, eggs, cheese, butter, cook with lard and bacon fat...

    I guess I missed the part where I, or the OP, said that low carb was the end all be all. I did see where you said "you don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety". Had you said "*I* don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety" I would have agreed with you. Plenty of people don't have to restrict carbs. I'm just not one of them. Not that low carb is the only way, or even the best way for all, just that it is the best way for me. And, for what it's worth, while many might find my diet "restrictive" I've never felt freer or more in control of my eating habits. Since I'm not hungry al, the time, I am free to indulge in true moderation without fear that that one little slice of cake will end up being half a cake before the night is over. I couldn't trust myself before. Now I can. To me, that's liberating, not restricting.

    " 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.
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    I did low carb for over a year and it worked as advertised. I lost the weight and wasn't hungry but ultimately I gained it all back and then some. The reason? Restrictive diets are boring to me and ultimately my cravings for (literally) forbidden fruits got to be too much. Low carb means saying goodbye to 85% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant. No thanks. Last night we had homemade strawberry shortcake with fresh strawberries. I adjusted my lunch and exercise to fit it in calorie wise. Pretty easy to do and IMO, life's too short to miss out on things like that.

    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 sounds like lchf...not just low carb.

    Not being snarky, but low carb is supposed to be high fat. When you reduce carbs (as a percentage) you obviously need to replace them with something else. Too much protein can have negative health consequences. So carbs get replaced with fats.
    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?
  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    Options
    TeaBea wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Alluminati wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    I did low carb for over a year and it worked as advertised. I lost the weight and wasn't hungry but ultimately I gained it all back and then some. The reason? Restrictive diets are boring to me and ultimately my cravings for (literally) forbidden fruits got to be too much. Low carb means saying goodbye to 85% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant. No thanks. Last night we had homemade strawberry shortcake with fresh strawberries. I adjusted my lunch and exercise to fit it in calorie wise. Pretty easy to do and IMO, life's too short to miss out on things like that.

    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 sounds like lchf...not just low carb.

    Not being snarky, but low carb is supposed to be high fat. When you reduce carbs (as a percentage) you obviously need to replace them with something else. Too much protein can have negative health consequences. So carbs get replaced with fats.

    You don't sound snarky at all but you do sound coy

    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?

    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.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    So you ate less than you burned (CICO) while choosing foods that met your satiety needs?

    I think her point (and I suspect you understand this, even if you want to play coy) is that for her, and many others, restricting carbs helps with satiety, making it easier to create a deficit without going hungry. I think she realizes that she ate less than she burned, she's just saying that LCHF made it easier for her to do that.

    /end thread indeed.

    But this is the thing you don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety, I went low carb 4 or 5 years ago and it was horrible...absolutely horrible...I never had that satisfied feeling....and by carbs I mean starches, I ate lots of veggies.

    But after coming here and reading I realized it was okay to eat potatoes and white rice and pasta and I was so very happy

    Even to this day I eat more protein and fats then carbs and I am "satisfied" and guess what lost weight and maintained....
    So, I'm sick of when people on here say they are struggling and someone on here suggests low carb and then another person berates them and says it's all about calories eat as much as you want but stay within the calories but heres the thing, did that and could not stay within my calories because carbs don't keep me satiated....they satisfy for an hour then I'm hungry again.. For example I used to have cheerios for breakfast but by first break at work (930) I was starving and usually grabbed a cookie or bag of chips...now I have 3 scrambled eggs with salsa (more calories) but I'm good till lunch!!I may have a small healthy snack like some Spitz or a handful of almonds but that's it!!!Now I'm not saying this works for everyone but I've lost 6 pounds in 2 and a half weeks doing this, it's working for me...so when someone on here suggests low care it is a VALID suggestion...the whole "eat whatever you want and stay within calorie goal" is not the ultimate answer so don't be quick to judge someone's suggestion.. Different lifestyles work for different people.

    I bolded what was the actual problem for you. How about grabbing something low calorie instead of cookies and chips?
    BTW. cookies and chips? Loooooots of fat.

    What I've said on here many times when I get to The point where I'm starving I have no self control and go for unhealthy stuff, eating a low carb high fat meal allows me to not feel that way and I can get away with a handful of almonds or a healthy snack till I get to lunch cause at break, I am still satiated from breakfast.....

    but you didn't have to go low carb for that all you had to do was plan ahead for what you knew was coming and pack yogurt, fruit, veggies etc to snack on...

    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 very little added fat. Cutting back on obvious "junk" (soda, chips, cookies, etc) helped, but not enough. I still struggled with hunger much of the time. When I dropped the grains and sugary fruit (keeping low sugar and savory fruit), started favoring fibrous veggies rather than starchy ones, switched to fattier cuts of meat and whole eggs, switched to full fat dairy, and increased the added fat (good fats like butter, lard, and bacon drippings), my hunger diminished in a big way. I was able to make more rational decisions and trust my hunger signals. Yes, I was obviously in a calorie deficit, so I lost weight. But for the first time in my life I was able to easily stick to that deficit long enough. I wasn't fighting hunger all the time. You may do well on a higher carb diet. Not everyone does.

    Yogurt (at least the low fat kind, full fat regular or Greek yogurt is okay for me, in small doses), fruit, starchy veggies, grains (even "whole" grains)... These fuel my hunger. I'd eat those, find myself still starving, and reach for more.

    did you miss the part where I said I eat more fats and protein but don't feel that going low carb is the end all to be all...it does help with weight loss esp at first but you can up protein and fats without sacrificing carbs to a degree that you are "restricting"

    I eat lots of meat, eggs, cheese, butter, cook with lard and bacon fat...

    I guess I missed the part where I, or the OP, said that low carb was the end all be all. I did see where you said "you don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety". Had you said "*I* don't have to restrict carbs to help with satiety" I would have agreed with you. Plenty of people don't have to restrict carbs. I'm just not one of them. Not that low carb is the only way, or even the best way for all, just that it is the best way for me. And, for what it's worth, while many might find my diet "restrictive" I've never felt freer or more in control of my eating habits. Since I'm not hungry al, the time, I am free to indulge in true moderation without fear that that one little slice of cake will end up being half a cake before the night is over. I couldn't trust myself before. Now I can. To me, that's liberating, not restricting.

    " 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.
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    peter56765 wrote: »
    I did low carb for over a year and it worked as advertised. I lost the weight and wasn't hungry but ultimately I gained it all back and then some. The reason? Restrictive diets are boring to me and ultimately my cravings for (literally) forbidden fruits got to be too much. Low carb means saying goodbye to 85% of everything at the grocery store and 95% of everything at a restaurant. No thanks. Last night we had homemade strawberry shortcake with fresh strawberries. I adjusted my lunch and exercise to fit it in calorie wise. Pretty easy to do and IMO, life's too short to miss out on things like that.

    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 sounds like lchf...not just low carb.

    Not being snarky, but low carb is supposed to be high fat. When you reduce carbs (as a percentage) you obviously need to replace them with something else. Too much protein can have negative health consequences. So carbs get replaced with fats.
    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?

    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?

  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • missh1967
    missh1967 Posts: 661 Member
    Options
    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.