High fats low carb - not losing weight

So I'm a lb shy of being a healthy weight in terms of BMI. I want to lose another 14lb. I haven't lost in two weeks, as per title I'm following a high fat low carb diet recently. I've not lost a lb, I've started exercising (once a week at body combat) I'm fairly active in the day as I'm a mum to two little people! Not sure where I'm going wrong, do I need to exercise more? I went for the high fat low carb route as lots of the food I already eat so it just logging it all, eating I'd say 1500 cal a day

Replies

ladyreva78

How are you measuring your intake (i.e. how do you know you're eat it roughly 1500 cals/day)?
How are you measuring your exercising burn?

Also keep in mind that the closer to your goal you are, the harder it will be to shift that weight. The body can be contrary that way.

livingleanlivingclean

sam_ibrahim13 wrote: »

So I'm a lb shy of being a healthy weight in terms of BMI. I want to lose another 14lb. I haven't lost in two weeks, as per title I'm following a high fat low carb diet recently. I've not lost a lb, I've started exercising (once a week at body combat) I'm fairly active in the day as I'm a mum to two little people! Not sure where I'm going wrong, do I need to exercise more? I went for the high fat low carb route as lots of the food I already eat so it just logging it all, eating I'd say 1500 cal a day

This suggests you aren't accurately weighing (solids) or measuring (liquids) what you're putting in your mouth.

Have you input your stats in to MFP? Where did your 1500 cals come from?

StealthHealth

High fat, low carb, excess calories = weight gain
Low fat, high carb, excess calories = weight gain

High fat, low carb, deficit calories = weight loss
Low fat, high carb, deficit calories = weight loss

jajohnso77

You need to know what your exact macro needs for the day are going to be. Then you need to measure, weigh, input everything into MFP. It's VERY easy to take in 40g a carb a day and get your body into a state of not losing weight. In Phase 3 and 4 of Atkins this would be On Going Weight Loss or Maintenance and you don't lose much at all since you've basically hit your goal weight and you're trying to stay there. You need to make sure 110% that you're not going over 20-25g of net carb per day. If you've been 2 weeks on a keto diet, staying on macros, staying active, staying under your calorie limit and staying under 25g of carbs a day and you're at a wall, maybe try a fat fast or a broth day to help shake things up a bit. Doing a one day broth fast helped me break through a wall I had a few days ago. Good luck!

edit - meant to add to DRINK YOUR WATER!! Half of your weight in oz every day or as close as you can. Weight 160 pounds? Drink 80oz of water. This is vital to the weight loss process when you're doing LCHF.

jemhh

Two weeks with no weight loss, especially as close to goal as you are, is completely normal. There is no reason to change anything at this point.

VintageFeline

jajohnso77 wrote: »

You need to know what your exact macro needs for the day are going to be. Then you need to measure, weigh, input everything into MFP. It's VERY easy to take in 40g a carb a day and get your body into a state of not losing weight. In Phase 3 and 4 of Atkins this would be On Going Weight Loss or Maintenance and you don't lose much at all since you've basically hit your goal weight and you're trying to stay there. You need to make sure 110% that you're not going over 20-25g of net carb per day. If you've been 2 weeks on a keto diet, staying on macros, staying active, staying under your calorie limit and staying under 25g of carbs a day and you're at a wall, maybe try a fat fast or a broth day to help shake things up a bit. Doing a one day broth fast helped me break through a wall I had a few days ago. Good luck!

edit - meant to add to DRINK YOUR WATER!! Half of your weight in oz every day or as close as you can. Weight 160 pounds? Drink 80oz of water. This is vital to the weight loss process when you're doing LCHF.

No. Macro splits make no difference to fat loss. It may knock someone out of ketosis if that's what they are doing but that increase would be glycogen and related water, not fat.

OP, I agree it's not long enough to really worry, especially as you are relatively close to goal. But it wouldn't hurt to nail your calorie intake accurately if not already doing so (your "about 1500" may just be a turn of phrase meaning an average or it may mean you don't log accurately).

With only 14lbs to go it can take a few weeks to see the downward trend and as the losses will be smaller and natural fluctuations more easily masking what you want to see on the scale.

jajohnso77

VintageFeline wrote: »

No. Macro splits make no difference to fat loss. It may knock someone out of ketosis if that's what they are doing but that increase would be glycogen and related water, not fat.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term macro split - is that the ratio of proteins / carbs / fats that you set to determine what type of calories you intake?

dragon_girl26

In addition to what everyone else said about calories (you need to be very accurate about that at this point), you should also take a look at the recently bumped thread about weight loss not being linear. I'm using my phone or I'd post the link. Basically, the idea is that weight loss is not linear, meaning it is highly unlikely that you will lose weight each week like clockwork, especially as you get closer to your goal. 2 or 3 week stalls are very normal. That is not a plateau It's just your body readjusting. If it's been more than 4 weeks, then you need to re-evaluate what you're doing.

VintageFeline

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

No. Macro splits make no difference to fat loss. It may knock someone out of ketosis if that's what they are doing but that increase would be glycogen and related water, not fat.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term macro split - is that the ratio of proteins / carbs / fats that you set to determine what type of calories you intake?

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

sam_ibrahim13

Thanks for your responses, I am logging everything "accurately" I.e weighing and measuring but sometimes I eat 1400 sometimes 1500, so on average I'd say 1500. I'll keep going and try to find more time to exercise. Thanks everyone

jajohnso77

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

WinoGelato

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

Not really.... in order to lose weight a person needs to be in a calorie deficit, period. Eating a certain way, like LCHF may result in some more rapid short term water weight loss, but over time this evens out. Some people have a medical reason to restrict carbs, and some folks find it easier to achieve a deficit eating this way because they are satiated, but from a purely fat loss perspective, there is no advantage to a LC diet.

Also, are you saying that you would store fat even if you kept your calories constant (i.e. a deficit) just by changing your macro split?

T1DCarnivoreRunner

WinoGelato wrote: »

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

Not really.... in order to lose weight a person needs to be in a calorie deficit, period. Eating a certain way, like LCHF may result in some more rapid short term water weight loss, but over time this evens out. Some people have a medical reason to restrict carbs, and some folks find it easier to achieve a deficit eating this way because they are satiated, but from a purely fat loss perspective, there is no advantage to a LC diet.

Also, are you saying that you would store fat even if you kept your calories constant (i.e. a deficit) just by changing your macro split?

I'm not going to argue the question of calories for fat loss, overall. However, it is correct that higher carb intake = higher conversion to fat. The method to weight loss ends up being different because then later on, fat is consumed. Glycogen also plays a role in this energy balance, but those who eat lots of carbs do store lots of fat. Even in a deficit, this is true. The difference is that then you have to tap into glycogen and fat when exercising. In the end, a deficit would still lead to fat loss under the high carb diet. But the mechanism is still different.

If you don't believe me, try testing your BG and then eating a bunch of carbs. Continue testing your BG every 15-30 min. for the next 5 hours without exercise. You will see BG rise from the carb consumption and then fall again... with no exercise. GASP! How could that have happened and where did that glucose go?! The answer is that it went to glycogen and fat.

OP, you might be experiencing water weight fluctuations or you might be losing too slowly to notice. 2 weeks isn't really enough time to see a difference. How often are you weighing? If your scale says the exact same thing every time, it is probably broken. You should expect to see some fluctuations, even if eating exactly at maintenance, due to normal water weight changes throughout the day. Assuming you are seeing normal fluctuations, but not satisfied that the ups and downs indicate a real loss, then give it some more time.

Chadxx

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

I eat about 2400 calories per day and consume plenty of carbs daily. It didn't stop me from dropping over 100 pounds in 6 months while also getting stronger. Carbs will not prevent you from burning stored fat.

StaciMarie1974

At the present your calorie deficit is probably in the .5-1 pound per week goal range? Meaning slight shifts in your weight could easily be masked by water weight.

sam_ibrahim13 wrote: »

Thanks for your responses, I am logging everything "accurately" I.e weighing and measuring but sometimes I eat 1400 sometimes 1500, so on average I'd say 1500. I'll keep going and try to find more time to exercise. Thanks everyone

jajohnso77

WinoGelato wrote: »

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

Not really.... in order to lose weight a person needs to be in a calorie deficit, period.

But is that really true? If you look at the Harvard Study that Greene did her findings weren't quite as definitive:

"A study put three groups of dieters on different regimens. They included a low-fat group, a low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories, and a third group on a similar low-carbohydrate plan that included 300 extra calories a day. The low-carbohydrate dieters lost more weight than low-fat dieters despite eating 25,000 extra calories over a 12-week study period. The findings generated national attention after Penelope Greene, a visiting scholar in the Harvard School of Public Health’s Nutrition Department, presented her research Oct. 13, 2003, at the annual meeting of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Greene conducted the study with Walter Willett, Nutrition Department chair and Fredrick Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition. Participants in all three groups lost weight, Greene said, with the low-fat group losing an average of 17 pounds and the low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories losing 23 pounds. The biggest surprise, however, was that the low-carbohydrate dieters eating extra calories lost more than those on the low-fat diet. Participants in that low-carbohydrate group lost an average of 20 pounds. (emphasis mine)

So can we really say that calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight - period? This is just one of many studies that shows taking in more calories of a different type can still lead to weight loss. It's the type of calorie that counts more than the calorie. My car engine performs more efficiently with 93 Octane than 89 Octane but they are both gasoline. Perhaps its the content of the gas that helps my engine run smoother. I think the same argument can be made that the type of calorie being consumed is more important than the number of them.

WinoGelato wrote: »

Also, are you saying that you would store fat even if you kept your calories constant (i.e. a deficit) just by changing your macro split?

Can you ask that a different way? Are you asking would I store fat if I changed my diet to be LFHC and changed nothing else?

Spliner1969

Low carb does not = weight loss. Caloric deficit = weight loss. If you're not losing weight, and according to your daily log you are in a deficit then one of two things is wrong; you've either mis-calculated your TDEE, or you're not being accurate with your logging (IE: not weighing solids, etc.). When you get closer to your goal weight it's much more important to be accurate with your logging. You also need to re-calculate your TDEE and your deficit frequently to make sure you are still in a deficit based on your current weight/age/etc. However, if you have not lost weight in 2 weeks it's just not long enough to tell. Give it time. However if you're gaining weight steadily, then you're in a caloric surplus and should definitely re-calculate. The less you weigh, the less calories your body needs, so if you have not been adjusting your goals very often then that may be why you're stalling out. Otherwise just wait it out a bit longer. It'll happen.

cerise_noir

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

Not one person will put fat on in a deficit, ever. One cannot create energy out of nothing. I agree with @VintageFeline

VintageFeline

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

A natural overnight fluctuation in weight is not proof that purely from a weight loss perspective, every calorie is not equal.

But respectfully, if you wish to debate this, it should really happen over in the debate section where this topic has probably already been extensively discussed and you can continue the discussion there.

Hijacking OPs thread isn't the place for it.

WinoGelato

VintageFeline wrote: »

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

A natural overnight fluctuation in weight is not proof that purely from a weight loss perspective, every calorie is not equal.

But respectfully, if you wish to debate this, it should really happen over in the debate section where this topic has probably already been extensively discussed and you can continue the discussion there.

Hijacking OPs thread isn't the place for it.

Agreed. If anyone is interested in that further discussion - this thread has a lot of good debate in it, or it did until it got hijacked by an argument about excretion...

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10505602/yet-another-study-shows-no-weight-loss-benefit-for-low-carb/p1

WinoGelato

jajohnso77 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

Not really.... in order to lose weight a person needs to be in a calorie deficit, period.

But is that really true? If you look at the Harvard Study that Greene did her findings weren't quite as definitive:

"A study put three groups of dieters on different regimens. They included a low-fat group, a low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories, and a third group on a similar low-carbohydrate plan that included 300 extra calories a day. The low-carbohydrate dieters lost more weight than low-fat dieters despite eating 25,000 extra calories over a 12-week study period. The findings generated national attention after Penelope Greene, a visiting scholar in the Harvard School of Public Health’s Nutrition Department, presented her research Oct. 13, 2003, at the annual meeting of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Greene conducted the study with Walter Willett, Nutrition Department chair and Fredrick Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition. Participants in all three groups lost weight, Greene said, with the low-fat group losing an average of 17 pounds and the low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories losing 23 pounds. The biggest surprise, however, was that the low-carbohydrate dieters eating extra calories lost more than those on the low-fat diet. Participants in that low-carbohydrate group lost an average of 20 pounds. (emphasis mine)

So can we really say that calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight - period? This is just one of many studies that shows taking in more calories of a different type can still lead to weight loss. It's the type of calorie that counts more than the calorie. My car engine performs more efficiently with 93 Octane than 89 Octane but they are both gasoline. Perhaps its the content of the gas that helps my engine run smoother. I think the same argument can be made that the type of calorie being consumed is more important than the number of them.

WinoGelato wrote: »

Also, are you saying that you would store fat even if you kept your calories constant (i.e. a deficit) just by changing your macro split?

Can you ask that a different way? Are you asking would I store fat if I changed my diet to be LFHC and changed nothing else?

That's not a study - it's a summary.

No one has said that there aren't different diets/ways of eating that contribute to weight loss success. But the fact remains, that in order to lose weight, an individual must be in a calorie deficit. It sounds like you are saying otherwise.

To the final point, yes that is essentially what I am asking. It sounds like you are saying that if you kept calories constant, eating within a calorie deficit, but changed the macro percentages of the foods you are eating, that you believe you would store fat even though you are still in a calorie deficit. IE you would gain weight eating LFHC even if you were previously losing on the same calories of LCHF. And again, I'm talking about true fat storage and fat gain, not just temporary water weight which is likely to happen if someone goes from eating LC to HC in a short amount of time, but that is a temporary spike.

WinoGelato

Back on track for the OP - were you previously losing weight and that has suddenly stalled in the last couple of weeks? You mentioned wanting to lose another 14 lbs, that indicates that you have recently lost weight. You said you are accurately tracking calories, weighing all your solid foods, and logging consistently? You also said that you were eating this way anyway, now you are just starting to log it. Were you not logging before? Did you change your exercise recently?

Even aside from the answers you might provide to those questions - two weeks isn't very long and weight loss isn't a steady linear downward trend. There are a lot of factors which can cause things to stall for a period of time, hormonal changes, stress, where you are in your cycle, etc. I would probably keep doing what you're doing and give it a few more weeks, if you still don't see any changes (up or down) then take a closer look at your calories and your logging.

cityruss

jajohnso77 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

Not really.... in order to lose weight a person needs to be in a calorie deficit, period.

But is that really true? If you look at the Harvard Study that Greene did her findings weren't quite as definitive:

"A study put three groups of dieters on different regimens. They included a low-fat group, a low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories, and a third group on a similar low-carbohydrate plan that included 300 extra calories a day. The low-carbohydrate dieters lost more weight than low-fat dieters despite eating 25,000 extra calories over a 12-week study period. The findings generated national attention after Penelope Greene, a visiting scholar in the Harvard School of Public Health’s Nutrition Department, presented her research Oct. 13, 2003, at the annual meeting of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Greene conducted the study with Walter Willett, Nutrition Department chair and Fredrick Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition. Participants in all three groups lost weight, Greene said, with the low-fat group losing an average of 17 pounds and the low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories losing 23 pounds. The biggest surprise, however, was that the low-carbohydrate dieters eating extra calories lost more than those on the low-fat diet. Participants in that low-carbohydrate group lost an average of 20 pounds. (emphasis mine)

So can we really say that calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight - period? This is just one of many studies that shows taking in more calories of a different type can still lead to weight loss. It's the type of calorie that counts more than the calorie. My car engine performs more efficiently with 93 Octane than 89 Octane but they are both gasoline. Perhaps its the content of the gas that helps my engine run smoother. I think the same argument can be made that the type of calorie being consumed is more important than the number of them.

WinoGelato wrote: »

Also, are you saying that you would store fat even if you kept your calories constant (i.e. a deficit) just by changing your macro split?

Can you ask that a different way? Are you asking would I store fat if I changed my diet to be LFHC and changed nothing else?

Macro arguing aside.

You need a deficit of calories for the body to consume it's stored bodyfat.

If you believe that bodyfat can be utilised by the body when a surplus of calories is present then you are flying in the face of the current understanding of the human body.

Any loss shown in your quoted studies was because of a deficit of available energy.

SCoil123

I'm also 10-15lb from goal weight. It is much slower when you get close to goal and there is less room for error in your logging. Plus water weight can mask progress pretty easily when you are losing so little.

For me I will bounce around going up and down in the same 4lb range for a few weeks and then overnight suddenly drop 1-3lb. It isnt linear.

Also, when was the last time you had your goal calories recalculated? As we get closer we need less. After losing my first 15lb my calorie goal for the same 0.5lb loss goal dropped by 100 calories a day. If I hadn't recalculated and kept eating that 100 cals results would have stalled.

lemurcat12

jajohnso77 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

jajohnso77 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

Yes. How you divide your macros up. The only important thing for weight loss is total number of calories. Your way of eating, whether, keto, Atkins, LCHF, vegan, vegetarian whatever is purely personal choice. Carbs don't stop you losing weight and all fasting does is potentially reduce your overall average calories for a week and is therefore totally unnecessary.

Cool. Then I think we agree to disagree. While yes, calories are the same in terms of energy, I think the body processes the type of calorie very differently. Currently I'm at 1680 calories a day with Fat 60%, Protein 35%, Carbs 5%. If I changed that to Carbs 60%, Protein 35%, Fat 5% then I would continue to accumulate fat in my fat cells. I've never seen a study that shows me that carb intake from a LFHC diet helps triglycerides breakdown and release fatty acids back in to the blood stream overall reducing the amount of fat stored in my fat cells. That's my belief in how I lose weight because I've seen the results. There are days when I go over my calorie count and I still lose weight on the scale the next morning and that can't be possible if calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight.

I guess what works for you, works for and works for me, works for me.

Cheers!

Not really.... in order to lose weight a person needs to be in a calorie deficit, period.

But is that really true? If you look at the Harvard Study that Greene did her findings weren't quite as definitive:

"A study put three groups of dieters on different regimens. They included a low-fat group, a low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories, and a third group on a similar low-carbohydrate plan that included 300 extra calories a day. The low-carbohydrate dieters lost more weight than low-fat dieters despite eating 25,000 extra calories over a 12-week study period. The findings generated national attention after Penelope Greene, a visiting scholar in the Harvard School of Public Health’s Nutrition Department, presented her research Oct. 13, 2003, at the annual meeting of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Greene conducted the study with Walter Willett, Nutrition Department chair and Fredrick Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition. Participants in all three groups lost weight, Greene said, with the low-fat group losing an average of 17 pounds and the low-carbohydrate group that ate the same number of calories losing 23 pounds. The biggest surprise, however, was that the low-carbohydrate dieters eating extra calories lost more than those on the low-fat diet. Participants in that low-carbohydrate group lost an average of 20 pounds. (emphasis mine)

Here's a good run-down of the study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55576-2003Oct20.html

A few things I would like to know include predicted TDEEs vs. weight loss and weight loss for the final 10 and 8 weeks of the study to remove water weight differences. The reason for the first question is that typically with these studies the weight loss for all groups is less than what the deficit would predict, suggesting some level of cheating, and I believe that low fat dieters might be cheater more. Here I suspect water weight is likely to be a bigger issue, which is consistent with the fact that there are often beginning differences that level out over time with these studies. Also, Greene herself suggested that she thought a reason might be protein differences (and the TEF of protein) which indicates a major flaw -- that protein was not held constant.

Later studies, including the NuSi ones, have demonstrated that when variables are controlled there is no fat loss benefit to low carb. Other studies (less controlled) have indicated that there may be a benefit to low carb for IR people, with a corresponding benefit to low fat for IS people (that's insulin resistant and sensitive).

So can we really say that calorie deficits are the only way to lose weight - period?

Yes. What absolutely NONE of these studies suggest is that one can lose without being at a calorie deficit or that one will gain/maintain despite being at a calorie deficit.

WinoGelato wrote: »

Also, are you saying that you would store fat even if you kept your calories constant (i.e. a deficit) just by changing your macro split?

Can you ask that a different way? Are you asking would I store fat if I changed my diet to be LFHC and changed nothing else?[/quote]

How about would you store net fat -- put on fat beyond what you currently have?

RoosterDJC

This is what makes eating and fitness frustrating. There are so many views, studies and varied results that focusing on any one diet is always in question. The most basic formula of calorie deficit = weight loss can't even be agreed upon...

WinoGelato

RoosterDJC wrote: »

This is what makes eating and fitness frustrating. There are so many views, studies and varied results that focusing on any one diet is always in question. The most basic formula of calorie deficit = weight loss can't even be agreed upon...

No, it is that simple. Calorie deficit = weight loss. That is immutable. Anyone saying otherwise is going against the laws of thermodynamics.

lemurcat12

WinoGelato wrote: »

RoosterDJC wrote: »

This is what makes eating and fitness frustrating. There are so many views, studies and varied results that focusing on any one diet is always in question. The most basic formula of calorie deficit = weight loss can't even be agreed upon...

No, it is that simple. Calorie deficit = weight loss. That is immutable. Anyone saying otherwise is going against the laws of thermodynamics.

Yes, and to add to this, this is why any diet (way of achieving a calorie deficit) can work. If you stop worrying about whether you need to pick LCHF/keto or HCLF or WFPB or South Beach or 80-10-10 or DASH or whatever and just focus on (a) getting a calorie deficit and (b) what works to keep you happy with what you are eating, satiated, and ideally eating a healthful diet when at a deficit, easy peasy. Or at least easier.

When you are constantly second guessing whether the diet you have picked is the best of all possible diets or if some other one might achieve an extra lb per month or some such, that's when people often end up not sticking to anything. Simplification and understanding why they all work is the ideal.

And as I said above (I think, might have been another thread), low carb can be really helpful for some, so worth trying to see if you like it, but it doesn't mean you don't have to also have a calorie deficit.

VintageFeline

WinoGelato wrote: »

RoosterDJC wrote: »

This is what makes eating and fitness frustrating. There are so many views, studies and varied results that focusing on any one diet is always in question. The most basic formula of calorie deficit = weight loss can't even be agreed upon...

No, it is that simple. Calorie deficit = weight loss. That is immutable. Anyone saying otherwise is going against the laws of thermodynamics.

yup. Disagreement stems from slightly evangelical followers of specific ways of eating. The science community is agreed that it always boils down to CICO. How you get there is personal.

Chadxx

WinoGelato wrote: »

RoosterDJC wrote: »

This is what makes eating and fitness frustrating. There are so many views, studies and varied results that focusing on any one diet is always in question. The most basic formula of calorie deficit = weight loss can't even be agreed upon...

No, it is that simple. Calorie deficit = weight loss. That is immutable. Anyone saying otherwise is going against the laws of thermodynamics.