High fats low carb - not losing weight
Options
Replies
-
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.6 -
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.
4 -
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.7 -
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.6 -
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?5 -
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...1
-
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.14 -
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.6 -
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.18 -
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.
6 -
*Not trying to hijack, just answering a question*lemurcat12 wrote: »How about would you store net fat -- put on fat beyond what you currently have?
Yes. I believe that if I were to change my macro split to a LFHC (200-300g carbs per day) type ratio and not change anything else I'm doing, my weight loss would effectively stop and I would, at a minimum, stay where I am if not gain weight. I could be eating extremely healthy and yet slowly, over time still getting fat and getting very frustrated. I'm not talking about changing exercise routines or anything else - just by simply changing that macro split that's what would happen to me. But hey, that's just me and how I process different types of foods. And I'm not saying that calorie deficits aren't helpful in LCHF diets, I'm just saying that they aren't required to lose weight. There's more than one way to activate the body to burn its stored fat and depending on the person, deficits aren't always required to do that.
Just curious, is there general agreement that the bio-chemical effects of ingested carbs is the primary reason and cause of the creation of excess accumulation of fat (formation of triglycerides, etc) in fat cells?0 -
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...
I wouldn't put too much credit into what people agree on. There are people who believe that not eating makes people fat, that vaccines cause autism, and all sorts of other goofy things. It's no surprise that weight management would escape some people, too.14 -
jajohnso77 wrote: »*Not trying to hijack, just answering a question*lemurcat12 wrote: »How about would you store net fat -- put on fat beyond what you currently have?
Yes. I believe that if I were to change my macro split to a LFHC (200-300g carbs per day) type ratio and not change anything else I'm doing, my weight loss would effectively stop and I would, at a minimum, stay where I am if not gain weight. I could be eating extremely healthy and yet slowly, over time still getting fat and getting very frustrated. I'm not talking about changing exercise routines or anything else - just by simply changing that macro split that's what would happen to me. But hey, that's just me and how I process different types of foods. And I'm not saying that calorie deficits aren't helpful in LCHF diets, I'm just saying that they aren't required to lose weight. There's more than one way to activate the body to burn its stored fat and depending on the person, deficits aren't always required to do that.
Just curious, is there general agreement that the bio-chemical effects of ingested carbs is the primary reason and cause of the creation of excess accumulation of fat (formation of triglycerides, etc) in fat cells?
This is completely and totally incorrect and flies in the face of our current accepted understanding of how the human body works.
If you believe you have evidence to the contrary I expect you are soon going to be a very famous and rich individual.11 -
jajohnso77 wrote: »Just curious, is there general agreement that the bio-chemical effects of ingested carbs is the primary reason and cause of the creation of excess accumulation of fat (formation of triglycerides, etc) in fat cells?
No. People who eat primarily fat store that fat instead.* Where do you think the extra fat calories go?
*This is NOT a "fat makes you fat" argument. It's an "excess calories make you fat - regardless of which macro they are from - argument".9 -
jajohnso77 wrote: »*Not trying to hijack, just answering a question*lemurcat12 wrote: »How about would you store net fat -- put on fat beyond what you currently have?
Yes. I believe that if I were to change my macro split to a LFHC (200-300g carbs per day) type ratio and not change anything else I'm doing, my weight loss would effectively stop and I would, at a minimum, stay where I am if not gain weight. I could be eating extremely healthy and yet slowly, over time still getting fat and getting very frustrated. I'm not talking about changing exercise routines or anything else - just by simply changing that macro split that's what would happen to me. But hey, that's just me and how I process different types of foods. And I'm not saying that calorie deficits aren't helpful in LCHF diets, I'm just saying that they aren't required to lose weight. There's more than one way to activate the body to burn its stored fat and depending on the person, deficits aren't always required to do that.
Just curious, is there general agreement that the bio-chemical effects of ingested carbs is the primary reason and cause of the creation of excess accumulation of fat (formation of triglycerides, etc) in fat cells?
No, there's absolutely not general agreement on that, I think it's wrong. And I think the idea that you'd lose weight without a deficit on low carb is wrong too.15 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »jajohnso77 wrote: »*Not trying to hijack, just answering a question*lemurcat12 wrote: »How about would you store net fat -- put on fat beyond what you currently have?
Yes. I believe that if I were to change my macro split to a LFHC (200-300g carbs per day) type ratio and not change anything else I'm doing, my weight loss would effectively stop and I would, at a minimum, stay where I am if not gain weight. I could be eating extremely healthy and yet slowly, over time still getting fat and getting very frustrated. I'm not talking about changing exercise routines or anything else - just by simply changing that macro split that's what would happen to me. But hey, that's just me and how I process different types of foods. And I'm not saying that calorie deficits aren't helpful in LCHF diets, I'm just saying that they aren't required to lose weight. There's more than one way to activate the body to burn its stored fat and depending on the person, deficits aren't always required to do that.
Just curious, is there general agreement that the bio-chemical effects of ingested carbs is the primary reason and cause of the creation of excess accumulation of fat (formation of triglycerides, etc) in fat cells?
No, there's absolutely not general agreement on that, I think it's wrong. And I think the idea that you'd lose weight without a deficit on low carb is wrong too.
Pretty much exactly what I was going to say, so I will just quote this post.
A calorie deficit is required to lose weight IN ALL DIETS. That is why so many people are able to be successful eating in ways that work for them, because they all have one thing in common - they create a sustained calorie deficit over time.
9 -
Interesting ideas - thanks everyone!1
-
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
do you use correct MFP db entires?
do you use a food scale?
do you log everything that you eat?3 -
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...
nope, there is one view...eat less then you burn = weight loss...
7 -
jajohnso77 wrote: »*Not trying to hijack, just answering a question*lemurcat12 wrote: »How about would you store net fat -- put on fat beyond what you currently have?
Yes. I believe that if I were to change my macro split to a LFHC (200-300g carbs per day) type ratio and not change anything else I'm doing, my weight loss would effectively stop and I would, at a minimum, stay where I am if not gain weight. I could be eating extremely healthy and yet slowly, over time still getting fat and getting very frustrated. I'm not talking about changing exercise routines or anything else - just by simply changing that macro split that's what would happen to me. But hey, that's just me and how I process different types of foods. And I'm not saying that calorie deficits aren't helpful in LCHF diets, I'm just saying that they aren't required to lose weight. There's more than one way to activate the body to burn its stored fat and depending on the person, deficits aren't always required to do that.
Just curious, is there general agreement that the bio-chemical effects of ingested carbs is the primary reason and cause of the creation of excess accumulation of fat (formation of triglycerides, etc) in fat cells?
run an experiment on yourself...eat 4000 calories a date low carb high fat for three months and report back with the results..
I guarantee you will gain weight.
then eat 1200 calories a day high carb/low fat for three months..
I guarantee you will lose weight14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions