low carb Does work!!!!
Replies
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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....domgibson88 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »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.
not all of themtlflag1620 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.
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?
Yes, they could be LC and LF at the same time, but it's not really advisable. Perhaps under a doctor's supervision, for certain medical conditions, that's about the only time I can think a LFLC (high protein) diet might be used. But I'll wait and see what Stef meant, specifically.0 -
This. I was low carb and even keto for months.trigden1991 wrote: »Low carb worked for you, it doesn't work for others. The only thing that works universally is the caloric deficit.
I lost weight, but my mood suffered so I went back to moderate carb and I've never felt better. I am still losing at the same rate now as I did with low carb. I kept the exact same deficit. Yeah.
Calories ARE king and a calorie deficit works for weight loss (it is science and math). How you decide to create that calorie deficit (low carb, high fat, high protein, etc) is up to the individual.
1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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....domgibson88 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »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.
not all of themtlflag1620 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.
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?
Yes, they could be LC and LF at the same time, but it's not really advisable. Perhaps under a doctor's supervision, for certain medical conditions, that's about the only time I can think a LFLC (high protein) diet might be used. But I'll wait and see what Stef meant, specifically.
Why do you have to be LC and LF? Why couldn't you be Low Carb, Moderate Fat, High Protein? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just think so often people ignore the middle ground. You do the LCHF way of eating, but how would you describe your protein? Low? Moderate? High?2 -
I lost close to 35 lbs doing a low carb diet. I wound up in the emergency room early one morning with the worst pain ever - kidney stone stuck in my ureter. My Dr. contributed my 22mm kidney stone to a low carb diet. Eating low carb can make the urine more acidic which can lead to uric acid stone formation.
Low carb may work for some, but not for all - me especially!
Being able to eat what I want, when I want as long as it fits into my calorie deficit has made weigh loss more sustainable for me (over a year and still going strong!) and I do not feel deprived, or hungry.5 -
CI<CO. There are many ways to achieve it. Low carb is just one of them. Get over it...9
-
mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.
You light them on fire!
1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.
You light them on fire!
The only reason Peeps exist is to be tortured. I get a pack every Easter to microwave, shine 1650W of light on until they smoke, set ablaze... I haven't mutilated them making Peep sushi yet, that should be next year. Pretty sure this ain't on anyone's low-carb diet:
5 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.
You light them on fire!
Those peeps would so end up in my mouth. 1 -
I'll just point out from the OP that the reason it's working for you is that in reality you're eating less calories. THAT is what is causing your weight loss. Before, you ate a lower calorie breakfast, but then snacked on "cookies" which obviously would not be low calorie. Now, you eat a higher calorie breakfast, but likely not high enough to outweigh the foregone cookies.
If you like low carb, go for it. However, I have read A LOT of responses from people on these forums where they immediately recommend cutting carbs when someone posts "help, I'm stuck". Even though those people are really just eating too many calories.
You can eat only protein and lose weight. You can eat only fat and lose weight. You can eat only carbs and lose weight. You can eat any combination of the preceding macros and lose weight, AS LONG as you have a calorie deficit. Moral of the story: low carb is not the cause of your weight loss. That's a fact. It is an aid in helping you stay fuller longer. That's it, that's all. I'm happy it does that for you. But low carb in itself is not ever, EVER, why people lose weight.6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »tlflag1620 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....domgibson88 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »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.
not all of themtlflag1620 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.
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?
Yes, they could be LC and LF at the same time, but it's not really advisable. Perhaps under a doctor's supervision, for certain medical conditions, that's about the only time I can think a LFLC (high protein) diet might be used. But I'll wait and see what Stef meant, specifically.
Why do you have to be LC and LF? Why couldn't you be Low Carb, Moderate Fat, High Protein? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just think so often people ignore the middle ground. You do the LCHF way of eating, but how would you describe your protein? Low? Moderate? High?
I get moderate protein. I get 60-70% of calories from fat, 20-30% from protein, and the remaining 20% or less from carbs, typically. You could certainly do a more even split, or even favor protein, so long as fat and/or carbs are kept high enough. I'm not sure it's advisable to get most of your calories from protein, just because protein is best for muscle maintenance (or growth), rather than for energy needs. It's just not as efficient an energy source as either carbs or fat. The way I've always seen it explained is that protein needs exist in a window - too little is bad, too much is bad. So in choosing what macro split to follow, you have more wiggle room in setting carb and fat levels (keeping in mind that low fat is also bad, so really carbs give you the most leeway when it comes to playing with macros - you can eat a whole lot, so long as you are getting the bare minimum of fat and protein, or you could eat no carbs at all).
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »
Really?seaandski14 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.
1 cup cooked spaghetti - 200 calories
2 tbsp butter - 200 calories
Which would be more filling?
For me? The butter.
Just straight butter?
Give me a nice buttery croissant (with real butter, not oil) or brioche and it's actually very filling.
But of course, carbs.1 -
Here is my before and after pics on my recent Low Carb eating. I will say that this is the ONLY thing that I changed was taking away some carbs and adding in some proteins. I also started drinking 3-4 liters of water a day. This was over a 12 week span. I gained 3lbs of LMM but also lost 3% BF. All in all I still weigh the same, almost identical, I just replaced fat with muscle. Food reacts differently with different people. As stated for some to comment in the manner of "No, it shouldn't matter" may true for some but for me it does not seem to hold true.1 -
mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.
You light them on fire!
The only reason Peeps exist is to be tortured. I get a pack every Easter to microwave, shine 1650W of light on until they smoke, set ablaze... I haven't mutilated them making Peep sushi yet, that should be next year. Pretty sure this ain't on anyone's low-carb diet:
You sound violent. I like you.cerise_noir wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.
You light them on fire!
Those peeps would so end up in my mouth.
So @queenliz99 is bringing the ice cream, @WinoGelato is bringing the wine, I'm making the spaghetti supper, and you can bring the vodka peeps. I'm thinking about inviting @Noel_57 and his new GF Jessica rabbit, since he's interested in having a less intellectual conversation.
Anyone else?4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »domgibson88 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.
Awwh I feel bad now the "imagine that" part was directed at ppl saying 2 weeks in is not valid reason to be posting this thread it was not directed at you!!!and I didn't add that I appreciate your advice but breaks would be less exciting if I didn't have something little to munch on....ugh this thread got way more intense then I expected although I love hearing everyone's sides to their personal weight loss journey0 -
RoseTheWarrior wrote: »I'll just point out from the OP that the reason it's working for you is that in reality you're eating less calories. THAT is what is causing your weight loss. Before, you ate a lower calorie breakfast, but then snacked on "cookies" which obviously would not be low calorie. Now, you eat a higher calorie breakfast, but likely not high enough to outweigh the foregone cookies.
If you like low carb, go for it. However, I have read A LOT of responses from people on these forums where they immediately recommend cutting carbs when someone posts "help, I'm stuck". Even though those people are really just eating too many calories.
You can eat only protein and lose weight. You can eat only fat and lose weight. You can eat only carbs and lose weight. You can eat any combination of the preceding macros and lose weight, AS LONG as you have a calorie deficit. Moral of the story: low carb is not the cause of your weight loss. That's a fact. It is an aid in helping you stay fuller longer. That's it, that's all. I'm happy it does that for you. But low carb in itself is not ever, EVER, why people lose weight.
I think this hit the nail on the head. If you are not counting calories accurately this would still be the case on a low carb diet? This does not solve the root of the problem. Now I doubt people would protest if the reply was something along the lines of "if you are feeling hungry you might want to consider low carb, I'm able to control my intake better on low carb so give it a try and see if it does the same for you, but do count calories accurately like stated above"2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.
You light them on fire!
The only reason Peeps exist is to be tortured. I get a pack every Easter to microwave, shine 1650W of light on until they smoke, set ablaze... I haven't mutilated them making Peep sushi yet, that should be next year. Pretty sure this ain't on anyone's low-carb diet:
You sound violent. I like you.cerise_noir wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.
You light them on fire!
Those peeps would so end up in my mouth.
So @queenliz99 is bringing the ice cream, @WinoGelato is bringing the wine, I'm making the spaghetti supper, and you can bring the vodka peeps. I'm thinking about inviting @Noel_57 and his new GF Jessica rabbit, since he's interested in having a less intellectual conversation.
Anyone else?
Hey I started this amazing beast of a thread can I come??lol0 -
domgibson88 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »domgibson88 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »domgibson88 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.
Awwh I feel bad now the "imagine that" part was directed at ppl saying 2 weeks in is not valid reason to be posting this thread it was not directed at you!!!and I didn't add that I appreciate your advice but breaks would be less exciting if I didn't have something little to munch on....ugh this thread got way more intense then I expected although I love hearing everyone's sides to their personal weight loss journey
Four exclamation points in a subject line tends to do that to a thread.4 -
domgibson88 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.
You light them on fire!
The only reason Peeps exist is to be tortured. I get a pack every Easter to microwave, shine 1650W of light on until they smoke, set ablaze... I haven't mutilated them making Peep sushi yet, that should be next year. Pretty sure this ain't on anyone's low-carb diet:
You sound violent. I like you.cerise_noir wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »
Please tell me those are vodka-soaked Peeps that will later be lit on fire.
You light them on fire!
Those peeps would so end up in my mouth.
So @queenliz99 is bringing the ice cream, @WinoGelato is bringing the wine, I'm making the spaghetti supper, and you can bring the vodka peeps. I'm thinking about inviting @Noel_57 and his new GF Jessica rabbit, since he's interested in having a less intellectual conversation.
Anyone else?
Hey I started this amazing beast of a thread can I come??lol
I suspect it won't be low carb though 1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions