High fats low carb - not losing weight
Replies
-
*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 -
can you open up your diary - people here are willing to help you out and getting a new set of eyes on your entries may help you find some areas that need tweaking1
-
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?
I bolded the critical point here. You believe.
Belief does not equate to proof.8 -
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 weight
I don't have to - someone else already did.0 -
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?
Calorie deficits aren't required for weight loss? Well color me surprised.
I've spent a lot of time in maintenance in this past year. Why oh why did I not lose weight? I feel as though I need back pay, damn it!
Food for thought:
A couple of years ago, I was stressed about needing to go low carb, so my ex Dietitian (who I trust because she has a degree and lots of experience) challenged me. She gave me a challenge that lasted around 3 or so months: 1 month of low carb with a 500 cal deficit (food weighed out) and another month of eating all foods in moderation. I did maintenance before and in between. I lost water weight with both diets.... and lost the exact same weight on both.
Since then I have been moderating. I have lost 100lbs to date eating moderate and sometimes high carb with only 40 to go. I also found that high fat isn't good for my digestive system and a certain medical condition. It also made me cranky, I had no energy and it screwed with my anxiety and depression. I did it correctly... increased my salt and other electrolytes and used a food scale. I lift and jog and even sleep better with carbs in my life. I was absolutely miserable and hungry on LC.
Your carb argument is invalid and goes against what science prooves. Yes, low carb does deplete glycogen stores, but fat loss in a deficit is the same.
I personally have no issue when someone does LC/keto, but I have issues with those who claim one can gain weight in a deficit or that a deficit plays no part in weight loss as well as it being the only and best way to lose weight. All weight loss diets revolve around a deficit.13 -
Sorry I haven't responded to your questions I'm finding it hard to read through the thread with all the information regarding macros. I've been on MFP for years and logged on and off for a long time. Only been logging for a month properly now, I'm off to see how to open/share my diary
1 -
jajohnso77 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?
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 weight
I don't have to - someone else already did.
Cool. I've got a spreadsheet showing that I ate 10,000 calories a day and lost weight even though my TDEE is 1800 calories! Do you believe me?7 -
sam_ibrahim13 wrote: »Sorry I haven't responded to your questions I'm finding it hard to read through the thread with all the information regarding macros. I've been on MFP for years and logged on and off for a long time. Only been logging for a month properly now, I'm off to see how to open/share my diary
Sorry OP, your thread did get a bit off track with the discussion.
If you go to Settings>Diary Settings>Diary Sharing>Public that should do the trick.
I think if you enjoy eating Low Carb, and track your calories accurately to stay within an appropriate deficit (with less than 20 lbs to lose that would be 0.5 lb/week) then you should start losing again very soon. It's likely that some extra exercise or where you are in your monthly cycle is masking any of your initial efforts.0 -
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
1st bold maybe has you retaining water since it's new exercise, if not the case bold number 2 would be the reason you aren't losing. If you aren't logging accurately then you really don't know how much you are eating.
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
This.4 -
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...
That's not true, there is only one formula of calorie deficit. If people don't understand that, then they shouldn't be helping anyone. There are many different ways of eating to get there though, but the formula will always stay the same eat less than you burn.
6 -
My point is, that it has become frustrating, erudite or ignorant. Reading all of this is 2 pages of frustrating.1
-
RoosterDJC wrote: »My point is, that it has become frustrating, erudite or ignorant. Reading all of this is 2 pages of frustrating.
Then perhaps the forums just aren't for you.
9 -
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.
OP, sorry your thread got hijacked. For brevity, this ^ is really the only post you need. You are close to goal, so you should be aiming for @ one-half-pound loss per week, which can be easily hidden by normal weight fluctuations. When I was losing my last 10lbs, I would go three or 4 weeks with no change and then lose a lb. Just keep at it, and when in doubt, tighten up your logging. Good luck :drinker:5 -
RoosterDJC wrote: »My point is, that it has become frustrating, erudite or ignorant. Reading all of this is 2 pages of frustrating.
I agree it's frustrating but keep reading. It seems like a lot of knowledgeable people on here. In just a few short days here, I have learned so many great things and things that I thought were true has turned out to be wrong.
I purchased a food scale and mind blown.
14 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »RoosterDJC wrote: »My point is, that it has become frustrating, erudite or ignorant. Reading all of this is 2 pages of frustrating.
Then perhaps the forums just aren't for you.
Perhaps...0 -
-
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »RoosterDJC wrote: »My point is, that it has become frustrating, erudite or ignorant. Reading all of this is 2 pages of frustrating.
I agree it's frustrating but keep reading. It seems like a lot of knowledgeable people on here. In just a few short days here, I have learned so many great things and things that I thought were true has turned out to be wrong.
I purchased a food scale and mind blown.
This. I'm several years into maintenance and I STILL learn new things here all the time-I love these forums over others because there's a really great group of very knowledgeable people that hang out here 5 -
RoosterDJC wrote: »My point is, that it has become frustrating, erudite or ignorant. Reading all of this is 2 pages of frustrating.
In all honesty, it isn't nearly as complicated as the media and fitness industry makes it out to be. They make a lot of money off of keeping people confused. It's a big business, and saying things like: watch your intake and move around more, isn't going to sell billions of dollars in books and supplements.
That being said there are multiple factors which make it more challenging to keeping at it. Those are the areas where you need to know yourself and explore what is best for personal adherence.
OP, there are so many different ways of getting there. I agree with those who say to give it more time, but to also review your logging and ensure that it is on spot. New exercise and TOM are just two of the variable which could be masking your losses.7 -
jajohnso77 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?
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 weight
I don't have to - someone else already did.
if that is truly the case then why not do it? If you can eat as many calories as you want and just go low carb and not get fat, then why wouldn't we all just do that?
sorry, I am doubtful of someone that puts a spreadsheet online and some progress pictures that cannot be independently verified.
5 -
sam_ibrahim13 wrote: »Sorry I haven't responded to your questions I'm finding it hard to read through the thread with all the information regarding macros. I've been on MFP for years and logged on and off for a long time. Only been logging for a month properly now, I'm off to see how to open/share my diary
there is your answer, it has only been a month.
if you do not have a food scale, I would suggest getting one.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions