No sugars and no carbs

scibba wrote: »

have you heard of the NSNG way of eating (No Sugar No Grain) - it's not a 'low carb' diet - you basically don't eat sugars or grains (wheat, rice, pasta, flour, oats - etc). Research grains and sugar and what they do to the body. It's not the food that makes us fat, it's hormones that are disrupted by the FOODs that we eat!

Hormones play an important role in metabolism, but you're misinformed. If one's hormones were responding correctly and one ate in surplus even without grains or sugar, they'd get fat.

Fat is NOT the enemy - healthy fats (NOT CRAPPY FATS like vegetable oil, corn oil, partially hydrogenated oils -etc) are actually good for you. Avacados, heavy whipping cream, butter, bacon, beef, chicken thighs, olives- all good for you.

But again, if one surpluses on them, they will GAIN WEIGHT.

NSNG is not a low carb diet, but from eating the right foods, carbs are automatically lowered. If you want more info, message me and I'll send you a link

That's because you're eliminated carbs.

For the person who said "This site is based on calorie reduction...with guidelines on nutritional macros (fiber, sodium, protein, etc.) to aim for...and promoting it in a SUSTAINABLE way." THAT Is a crazy diet.

What? How is that crazy? Ensuring that one's macros and micros fit a person's way of life is crazy? Please explain?

calorie reduction is impossible to sustain. If it wasn't - jenny craig, weight watchers and all of those other 'calorie counting' diets would not be making money and getting repeat clients. Why? We all know, once you go back to eating all those calories, you gain the weight back.

Sorry but you're dead wrong. It IS sustainable IF one continues habitual behavior. Weight gain occurs when one no longer follows any program. It's MUCH better to have a program where one feels like it's not so restrictive that they don't feel like a social leper, or they feel they are missing out. That's why calorie counting works well for many people.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

You all need to take it easy when someone is reaching out.

HG210 wrote: »

You all need to take it easy when someone is reaching out.

I think alot of people are just concerned. If a doctor says you can eat all the meat and vegetables you want but can't eat things that are white or off white that sends up red flags. Never in my life have I heard of any competent doctor recommending eating or not eating based on color, that is not something a medical professional would do. I asked my doctor this morning and it said it was probably an alternative medicine provider that gave the recommendations.

This is the diet I've been on and, so far, one I find not at all "crazy" or "impossible." In a little over two months, I've lost 18 pounds. It's also the diet both my father's and my husband's doctors recommended for them. As others have said, I think the low carb daily forum is probably the best place to find others who are on a similar diet.

Things I've found helpful on the diet so far have been:
1.) Starting the day with a protein-packed breakfast (eggs are my best friend)
2.) Replacing all my sugary drinks with seltzer and lemon water
3.) Using zucchini or squash "noodles" in place of regular pasta. They are actually more flavorful and keep me full longer!
4.) Keeping almonds stashed in my desk drawer and string cheese in the work fridge for days when I need a filling snack.
5.) Understanding that sometimes, a replacement won't do, so eating a sugary treat or a piece of pizza is not the end of the world. Just get back in the saddle.

Lots of others have great tips, too. Once you get used to finding replacements for your usual sugary and carby treats, it's not as hard as it seems.

Good luck to you!

Sandtigress wrote: »

Sugar didn't make you gain weight...EXCESS CALORIES DID!

Well yeah, obviously! Overeating sugar Bash fat all you want, but I can tell you that I have never sat with a tub of butter, unable to put the utensil down because I just HAD to have another bite. Substitute butter with ice cream however, and you'll see where my weight problems come from.

If you re-read my post, I had nothing bad to say about restricting all calories and keeping sugar in your diet. It is (not-so-simple) physics of energy in, energy out (not-so-simple due to the variables that can change the rate (metabolism) of the individual's energy expenditure, but simple due to the easy to understand concept of what goes in, must come out) This was just my viewpoint on a type of diet that a lot of people seem misinformed about. I don't think many people just jump on the ketogenic diet without doing some research first. And the research predominantly states that it's hella good for my purposes.

The reason people don't sit down with a tub of butter and go to town is because butter doesn't taste good on it's on. It's great ON stuff, but is pretty gross on it it's own. Just like mustard. Love mustard on a sandwich but would never eat it on it's own. Or syrup. I put lots of syrup on my pancakes but I've never just guzzled a bottle of it (although I did once chug a whole bottle of Hershey's chocolate syrup as part of an eating challenge).

Also, about half the calories in ice cream are from fat. Not sure why everyone thinks ice cream is basically all sugar.

Carbs and grains are life!!

scibba wrote: »

For the person who said "This site is based on calorie reduction...with guidelines on nutritional macros (fiber, sodium, protein, etc.) to aim for...and promoting it in a SUSTAINABLE way." THAT Is a crazy diet.

calorie reduction is impossible to sustain. If it wasn't - jenny craig, weight watchers and all of those other 'calorie counting' diets would not be making money and getting repeat clients. Why? We all know, once you go back to eating all those calories, you gain the weight back.

I just wanted to address the last two paragraphs. I'm curious how you perceive eating a balanced diet with a variety of foods in a calorie deficit and the recommendation to eat in a way that is sustainable as a crazy diet? Yet cutting out entire food groups to help achieve that calorie deficit is not?

Also, to the final paragraph: A calorie deficit is not something that is meant to be sustained forever. What is advocated for on this site is to eat at an appropriate calorie deficit based on your goals (how much to lose and a reasonable rate of loss). As a user gets closer to goal, the deficit is reduced and weight loss is slowed to 0.5 lb/week in order to help ease the transition into maintenance at an appropriate calorie level for the new weight.

Of course if you go back to eating the same number of calories as before, i.e. an energy surplus, you would gain the weight back. That also goes for people who cut out foods in order to lose weight, if they go back to eating the same as before in a calorie surplus, they too would gain the weight back. Certainly there are a lot of people who are successful at losing but not at maintaining - but in my opinion, the more dramatic the approach during weight loss, the lower the chances for long term success. For me, something that involves the word NO anything would be extreme and less likely to be sustainable even during the weight loss process. NSNG would be something that I think is way more restrictive than what the majority of people need to undertake in order to be successful.

scibba wrote: »

do what works for you

Thanks, I do. Kind of rich coming from someone telling others to give up sugars and grains, though.

after 6 years of calorie restriction and my weight constantly going up and down, I've done NSNG for over a year and lost and maintained weight.

So you had a calorie restriction and are now eating at maintenance. That's great (sincerely). Glad you found something that works for you.

I have gone from using an inhaler for asthma almost daily for the last 30 years to a couple of times a week. Inflammation in my shoulder and knee are gone. I'm not sure, since I am a lax logger of food, but I probably get up over 2000 calories a day maybe a bit more. Never hungry - my resting heart rate is around 52 - my triglycerides this year were 24. The doctor said my cholesterol was 'stellar' - and to keep doing what I'm doing. It's not low carb since I eat fruits, nuts avocados.

Over 2000 would be a normal maintenance for many. It's what I eat at maintenance, certainly, when I'm reasonably active. My test results are also great (although they were fine even when I was fat).

You can be low carb and eat nuts and fruit and avocados (nuts and avocados don't have that many carbs at all, I would never think someone would restrict them). I am eating around 100 g carbs now (pretty low, not keto, of course), and eat fruit, as well as lots of veg and some more starchy veg. It's about amounts.

Now, one can do NSNG and not be low carb, but you'd have to make an effort to eat lots of fruit (ironically, with sugar) or a good amount of tubers or the like -- I have friends who are paleo-ish crossfitters, and they do that (sweet potatoes also have sugar, though).

NSNG is absolutely NOT calorie restriction.

It is a way of getting to a calorie deficit or staying at maintenance, yes.

If you think you are eating more calories than you would focusing on calorie counting and having the same loss, you are confused. Indeed, you can calorie count AND exclude sugars and grains. I did paleo for a while, and you lose if you have a deficit and don't if you don't. Lots of people do these diets and want to lose but don't.

I am all for finding the way to eat that is most comfortable for you (which may be different than others, though, so I jump in when someone is evangelical), and I certainly do think that if you eat a poor diet or an unbalanced diet with excessive added sugar or refined grains or some such that changing it is a smart idea (for nutrition and satiety, at least). But that doesn't mean that one must cut out specific foods to lose or that you lose without a calorie deficit.

I note, again, that this exchange started because you said it was IMPOSSIBLE to sustain a moderate calorie deficit and then maintenance. If that were true, no one could ever lose weight, because weight loss works through a calorie deficit, however achieved.

scibba wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

scibba wrote: »

have you heard of the NSNG way of eating (No Sugar No Grain) - it's not a 'low carb' diet - you basically don't eat sugars or grains (wheat, rice, pasta, flour, oats - etc).

It's Vinnie Tortorich, you should probably disclose that. He's a personal trainer with a popular diet book and podcast, not a nutrition expert.

Anyway, it usually is low carb and he seems to be all about HFLC these days (I don't listen to him much, admittedly, and I know he used to not be into keto -- I have listened to and enjoyed his discussions with Rich Roll and a variety of others since I love those kinds of podcasts when on a long run).

Research grains and sugar and what they do to the body. It's not the food that makes us fat, it's hormones that are disrupted by the FOODs that we eat!

Sigh.

There's nothing credible saying that whole grains hurt you, unless you are celiac, of course. Giving them up can be an easy way to cut calories, depending on you, and as part of LCHF I think it makes sense. I do moderate carb and rarely eat grains simply because they aren't worth the calories to me most of the time. But that's different from claiming that they are bad for you or mess up your hormones.

As for sugar, a lot of Americans eat excessive sugar in the form of excessive low nutrient sweet stuff (often with high cals that are half from fat, however). But to focus on sugar is to target fruits, veg, and dairy too, when I've seen nothing credible (again) that such foods are harmful at all, in the context of a balanced diet. And that includes any amount of fruit and veg assuming you also get adequate protein and fat. If you want to cut them to do keto, fine, whatever, that works for some, but the idea that they are inherently bad for you is, IMO, an inaccurate and harmful claim.

I also see no reason why the solution to eating excessive added sugar is eating none. Seems odd. I get that some find it easier to moderate if they rarely eat something rather than trying to include non excessive amounts regularly, but that's different from claiming an occasional chocolate will ruin you or screw up your hormones. (Vinnie himself doesn't actually claim that, or didn't when I listened.)

No one said anything about fat so I'm ignoring that bit.

For the person who said "This site is based on calorie reduction...with guidelines on nutritional macros (fiber, sodium, protein, etc.) to aim for...and promoting it in a SUSTAINABLE way." THAT Is a crazy diet.

calorie reduction is impossible to sustain.

That's absurd. All keto and NSNG and paleo and all the rest are, really, are ways to help sustain a calorie deficit or maintenance, and there's no evidence they work better in the long run than anything else.

do what works for you - after 6 years of calorie restriction and my weight constantly going up and down, I've done NSNG for over a year and lost and maintained weight. I have gone from using an inhaler for asthma almost daily for the last 30 years to a couple of times a week. Inflammation in my shoulder and knee are gone. I'm not sure, since I am a lax logger of food, but I probably get up over 2000 calories a day maybe a bit more. Never hungry - my resting heart rate is around 52 - my triglycerides this year were 24. The doctor said my cholesterol was 'stellar' - and to keep doing what I'm doing. It's not low carb since I eat fruits, nuts avocados. NSNG is absolutely NOT calorie restriction.

Vinnie's book was not a diet book, if you read it - you'd know.

I'm almost 4 years into successful maintenance (not including my weight loss phase), which is several more years than you. The only thing I track is calorie intake and I control my weight completely by this. Within my calorie parameters I eat all the foods I like and focus on variety and balance. I haven't cut out anything I like or box myself in with arbitrary rules and restrictions. Tell me again how this is not sustainable for me?

Also, my cholesterol numbers are stellar as well, including a total cholesterol of 143. I've also normalized a high glucose number and am no longer labeled a pre-diabetic.

And one last thing-if you're being lax in your tracking then you have no idea how many calories you're actually consuming. If your weight is stable though then you're eating at the calorie intake that your body needs to maintain.

(edited for grammar and stuff)

Rebecca0224 wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

Sandtigress wrote: »

Sugar didn't make you gain weight...EXCESS CALORIES DID!

Well yeah, obviously! Overeating sugar Bash fat all you want, but I can tell you that I have never sat with a tub of butter, unable to put the utensil down because I just HAD to have another bite. Substitute butter with ice cream however, and you'll see where my weight problems come from.

If you re-read my post, I had nothing bad to say about restricting all calories and keeping sugar in your diet. It is (not-so-simple) physics of energy in, energy out (not-so-simple due to the variables that can change the rate (metabolism) of the individual's energy expenditure, but simple due to the easy to understand concept of what goes in, must come out) This was just my viewpoint on a type of diet that a lot of people seem misinformed about. I don't think many people just jump on the ketogenic diet without doing some research first. And the research predominantly states that it's hella good for my purposes.

The reason people don't sit down with a tub of butter and go to town is because butter doesn't taste good on it's on. It's great ON stuff, but is pretty gross on it it's own. Just like mustard. Love mustard on a sandwich but would never eat it on it's own. Or syrup. I put lots of syrup on my pancakes but I've never just guzzled a bottle of it (although I did once chug a whole bottle of Hershey's chocolate syrup as part of an eating challenge).

Also, about half the calories in ice cream are from fat. Not sure why everyone thinks ice cream is basically all sugar.

Don't feel too bad my father would drink cans of Hershey chocolate syrup, he would just pop a hole in the top and drink. He was always skinny but had no teeth at the age of 50. So did you win the challenge?

Oh I totally won. It was a group challenge where three teams of five people race to see who can eat an entire ice cream sundae the fastest...one ingredient at a time. First a half gallon of ice cream, then a bottle of chocolate syrup, then a can of whipped cream and finally a whole jar of cherries.
The other teams took turns squirting chocolate into each player's mouth. I just twisted the lid off and chugged it.

jeanieneni wrote: »

Hi Microwoman, You are now on a ketogenic diet. Congratulations! Have a look at diet doctor.com for guidance and amazing recipes. Care MUST be taken on a low-carb diet to eat sufficient fats (for energy), and sufficient sodium (salt). Very low carb levels mean we flush a lot of excess fluids out of our system, thereby losing sodium. With insufficient sodium in the blood, we die. It's THAT important. Once you get a handle on this, you will love it. It's DELICIOUS. You CAN eat cream and butter, and olive oil. Yoghurt and cheese are fine, since the cultures used in making these products have already dealt with any carbs, leaving none for you! And BTW, above-ground vegetables have little carbs, and should be okay for you to eat.
I wish you well, but DO THE RESEARCH for your health's sake. Jeanieneni

"The cultures used in making these products have already dealt with any carbs ..."

HUH?!??