High fats low carb - not losing weight
Replies
-
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?
Why not? Send it over and let me take a look.2 -
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.
I don't know. Why wouldn't you? Have you had problems with a high calorie LCHF diet in the past? It sounds like if I did the same thing that Sam did you wouldn't believe me either, so I guess I'll just stick with what I've been doing. Thanks!0 -
-
jajohnso77 wrote: »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.
I don't know. Why wouldn't you? Have you had problems with a high calorie LCHF diet in the past? It sounds like if I did the same thing that Sam did you wouldn't believe me either, so I guess I'll just stick with what I've been doing. Thanks!
I love low carb, high fat eating as much as anyone else here. Been doing it for over three years. Lost 50lbs and have kept it off easily.
But.
I lost the weight because I was consuming fewer calories than I was burning. I maintain my weight because I eat the same number of calories as I burn. While my husband was deployed I decided to do a short bulking cycle of 12 weeks, with the goal of gaining 6 lbs. I ate around 2300-2400 calories per day (my maintenance is about 1950) and lifted 3-4 days a week. I put on 6 lbs (in about ten weeks). All the while eating LCHF. Then I cut for the next 6 weeks, still LCHF. I've lost 5 of the six I gained (and look better now
). You can lose, gain, or maintain on LCHF. I prefer it because it is quite satiating and I like the food. But make no mistake, you still need to watch calories. You can definitely overeat even when you keep the carbs low.
You could quite easily prove to yourself that you can indeed gain on LCHF. Just up your calories an extra 200-300 per day for a few weeks. You will put on weight. No matter how low the carbs are.
22 -
jajohnso77 wrote: »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.
I don't know. Why wouldn't you? Have you had problems with a high calorie LCHF diet in the past? It sounds like if I did the same thing that Sam did you wouldn't believe me either, so I guess I'll just stick with what I've been doing. Thanks!
Respectfully, if you can eat more calories lchf why wouldn't you regardless if we believe you or not? I mean the one guy ate 3k nuts alone. If that's your diet of choice and you could do it why not? Why stick to what you're doing?
Personally even IF studies ever prove these guys right I still would rather eat less calories in carbs than higher calories in fat.
The reverse is true, IF studies ever came out that I could eat more calories in carbs and not gain, heck I'd be all over it:)3 -
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?
Check the evidence, or pick up one of the many fascinating books that outline body metabolism and food storage. What you eat DOES matter. The only way I ever lose weight is to keep carbs down. The one adjustment I might recommend for the original poster is to try eating a few more calories - it's possible that your results will improve.0 -
KeithWhiteJr wrote: »
About 5 g carbs in a medium tomato. Not many carbs in cheese -- it's mostly fat, a little protein. Depends on the kind of cheese, though.2 -
fitchick256 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. 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?
Check the evidence, or pick up one of the many fascinating books that outline body metabolism and food storage. What you eat DOES matter. The only way I ever lose weight is to keep carbs down. The one adjustment I might recommend for the original poster is to try eating a few more calories - it's possible that your results will improve.
In terms of weight loss it really doesn't. As long as you're eating at the correct calorie deficit for your weight goals it doesn't matter what foods your calorie intake is made from.
I lost 50lbs eating a higher carb diet full of processed 'diet' food, fast foods, sugary foods etc. Lost the weight no problem and improved all my health markers in the process. The only thing I focused on was hitting my calorie target. Now I'm a few years into maintenance and my #1 priority is still calorie intake, followed by eating a varied and balanced diet that includes all the foods I like. I still eat a higher carb diet because carbs have a higher satiety level for me.3 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »jajohnso77 wrote: »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.
I don't know. Why wouldn't you? Have you had problems with a high calorie LCHF diet in the past? It sounds like if I did the same thing that Sam did you wouldn't believe me either, so I guess I'll just stick with what I've been doing. Thanks!
I love low carb, high fat eating as much as anyone else here. Been doing it for over three years. Lost 50lbs and have kept it off easily.
But.
I lost the weight because I was consuming fewer calories than I was burning. I maintain my weight because I eat the same number of calories as I burn. While my husband was deployed I decided to do a short bulking cycle of 12 weeks, with the goal of gaining 6 lbs. I ate around 2300-2400 calories per day (my maintenance is about 1950) and lifted 3-4 days a week. I put on 6 lbs (in about ten weeks). All the while eating LCHF. Then I cut for the next 6 weeks, still LCHF. I've lost 5 of the six I gained (and look better now ). You can lose, gain, or maintain on LCHF. I prefer it because it is quite satiating and I like the food. But make no mistake, you still need to watch calories. You can definitely overeat even when you keep the carbs low.
You could quite easily prove to yourself that you can indeed gain on LCHF. Just up your calories an extra 200-300 per day for a few weeks. You will put on weight. No matter how low the carbs are.
Thank you for posting that.7 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »jajohnso77 wrote: »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.
I don't know. Why wouldn't you? Have you had problems with a high calorie LCHF diet in the past? It sounds like if I did the same thing that Sam did you wouldn't believe me either, so I guess I'll just stick with what I've been doing. Thanks!
I love low carb, high fat eating as much as anyone else here. Been doing it for over three years. Lost 50lbs and have kept it off easily.
But.
I lost the weight because I was consuming fewer calories than I was burning. I maintain my weight because I eat the same number of calories as I burn. While my husband was deployed I decided to do a short bulking cycle of 12 weeks, with the goal of gaining 6 lbs. I ate around 2300-2400 calories per day (my maintenance is about 1950) and lifted 3-4 days a week. I put on 6 lbs (in about ten weeks). All the while eating LCHF. Then I cut for the next 6 weeks, still LCHF. I've lost 5 of the six I gained (and look better now ). You can lose, gain, or maintain on LCHF. I prefer it because it is quite satiating and I like the food. But make no mistake, you still need to watch calories. You can definitely overeat even when you keep the carbs low.
You could quite easily prove to yourself that you can indeed gain on LCHF. Just up your calories an extra 200-300 per day for a few weeks. You will put on weight. No matter how low the carbs are.
Thanks! Ten years ago I did a high calorie LCHF with a lot of success actually - very similar to Sam Feltham's results but I didn't take in quite as many per day as he did. I only took in about 2700 calories a day which included 24 grams of carbs and I lost pretty steadily and regularly with minimal exercise.
I'm guessing that no one here believes that's possible because I must be violating laws of physics, etc - but what if - what if it's not the human body as a whole that is the "isolated system"? What if you just focus on the fat cell? What if a fat cell has been having fatty acids pouring in and out freely and then the intake of extra carbs begins the insulin secretion and starts creating triglycerides and storing them for a long time. Then one day the storage stops because you've cut off the carbs. Now you're in a state of ketosis and your body is breaking down those stored up triglycerides back into flowing fatty acids for energy and you're expelling the excess ketones through air and urine.
Would that process still violate laws of thermodynamics? Would I still need to output more than I input to lose weight?0 -
jajohnso77 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »jajohnso77 wrote: »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.
I don't know. Why wouldn't you? Have you had problems with a high calorie LCHF diet in the past? It sounds like if I did the same thing that Sam did you wouldn't believe me either, so I guess I'll just stick with what I've been doing. Thanks!
I love low carb, high fat eating as much as anyone else here. Been doing it for over three years. Lost 50lbs and have kept it off easily.
But.
I lost the weight because I was consuming fewer calories than I was burning. I maintain my weight because I eat the same number of calories as I burn. While my husband was deployed I decided to do a short bulking cycle of 12 weeks, with the goal of gaining 6 lbs. I ate around 2300-2400 calories per day (my maintenance is about 1950) and lifted 3-4 days a week. I put on 6 lbs (in about ten weeks). All the while eating LCHF. Then I cut for the next 6 weeks, still LCHF. I've lost 5 of the six I gained (and look better now ). You can lose, gain, or maintain on LCHF. I prefer it because it is quite satiating and I like the food. But make no mistake, you still need to watch calories. You can definitely overeat even when you keep the carbs low.
You could quite easily prove to yourself that you can indeed gain on LCHF. Just up your calories an extra 200-300 per day for a few weeks. You will put on weight. No matter how low the carbs are.
Thanks! Ten years ago I did a high calorie LCHF with a lot of success actually - very similar to Sam Feltham's results but I didn't take in quite as many per day as he did. I only took in about 2700 calories a day which included 24 grams of carbs and I lost pretty steadily and regularly with minimal exercise.
I'm guessing that no one here believes that's possible because I must be violating laws of physics, etc - but what if - what if it's not the human body as a whole that is the "isolated system"? What if you just focus on the fat cell? What if a fat cell has been having fatty acids pouring in and out freely and then the intake of extra carbs begins the insulin secretion and starts creating triglycerides and storing them for a long time. Then one day the storage stops because you've cut off the carbs. Now you're in a state of ketosis and your body is breaking down those stored up triglycerides back into flowing fatty acids for energy and you're expelling the excess ketones through air and urine.
Would that process still violate laws of thermodynamics? Would I still need to output more than I input to lose weight?
So you're in maintenance then? Us maintainers are a rare breed and it's always nice to find a fellow one 0 -
jajohnso77 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »jajohnso77 wrote: »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.
I don't know. Why wouldn't you? Have you had problems with a high calorie LCHF diet in the past? It sounds like if I did the same thing that Sam did you wouldn't believe me either, so I guess I'll just stick with what I've been doing. Thanks!
I love low carb, high fat eating as much as anyone else here. Been doing it for over three years. Lost 50lbs and have kept it off easily.
But.
I lost the weight because I was consuming fewer calories than I was burning. I maintain my weight because I eat the same number of calories as I burn. While my husband was deployed I decided to do a short bulking cycle of 12 weeks, with the goal of gaining 6 lbs. I ate around 2300-2400 calories per day (my maintenance is about 1950) and lifted 3-4 days a week. I put on 6 lbs (in about ten weeks). All the while eating LCHF. Then I cut for the next 6 weeks, still LCHF. I've lost 5 of the six I gained (and look better now ). You can lose, gain, or maintain on LCHF. I prefer it because it is quite satiating and I like the food. But make no mistake, you still need to watch calories. You can definitely overeat even when you keep the carbs low.
You could quite easily prove to yourself that you can indeed gain on LCHF. Just up your calories an extra 200-300 per day for a few weeks. You will put on weight. No matter how low the carbs are.
Thanks! Ten years ago I did a high calorie LCHF with a lot of success actually - very similar to Sam Feltham's results but I didn't take in quite as many per day as he did. I only took in about 2700 calories a day which included 24 grams of carbs and I lost pretty steadily and regularly with minimal exercise.
Based on your profile you are a 39 year old guy, so depending on size I don't think it's at all surprising that you (at 29) could have lost at 2700. Bigger issue for me would be getting in 2700 calories with just 24 g carbs, but that all depends on how you like to eat, and I know people can.
What seems more surprising is that you think you couldn't lose on 1680 with 60% carbs, reasonable protein, lower fat. It might not be satiating for you, but if your profile is right and you are a 39 year old guy with about 75 lbs left to lose you should lose fast with those calories, regardless of macros.
I lost easily on 1680 (both at 50% carbs or my preferred 25-40%) as a 5'3 healthy weight woman who is older than you. I'd gain on 2700, no question, but that would be the case whether I did keto or not.
You seem to think you can't add fat without carbs, and that's not so. It's easier to store fat as fat than it is to store carbs as fat (takes extra calories to turn carbs into fat), although neither will happen in a deficit or at maintenance.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Based on your profile you are a 39 year old guy, so depending on size I don't think it's at all surprising that you (at 29) could have lost at 2700. Bigger issue for me would be getting in 2700 calories with just 24 g carbs, but that all depends on how you like to eat, and I know people can.
Agreed. My husband is 49, and he can burn 4000 calories on a good day. He's usually in the low to mid 3000s. He's losing weight quite handily at the moment. Doesn't count calories, but based on how much he eats compared to me, I'll guess he's eating about 3000 calories/day.
Losing weight while eating a lot is evidence of nothing if you're also burning a lot of calories.8 -
jajohnso77 wrote: »Thanks! Ten years ago I did a high calorie LCHF with a lot of success actually - very similar to Sam Feltham's results but I didn't take in quite as many per day as he did. I only took in about 2700 calories a day which included 24 grams of carbs and I lost pretty steadily and regularly with minimal exercise.
Eating "about" 2700 calories a day ... how did you measure your intake?6 -
fitchick256 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. 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?
Check the evidence, or pick up one of the many fascinating books that outline body metabolism and food storage. What you eat DOES matter. The only way I ever lose weight is to keep carbs down. The one adjustment I might recommend for the original poster is to try eating a few more calories - it's possible that your results will improve.
For weight loss, no, calories are the only thing that matters. If you are successful losing by keeping carbs down it's because you've found a way of eating at a deficit that you find sustainable.
Are you suggesting if OP isn't losing she needs to eat more?3 -
[/quote]
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? [/quote]
Check the evidence, or pick up one of the many fascinating books that outline body metabolism and food storage. What you eat DOES matter. The only way I ever lose weight is to keep carbs down. The one adjustment I might recommend for the original poster is to try eating a few more calories - it's possible that your results will improve. [/quote]
For weight loss, no, calories are the only thing that matters. If you are successful losing by keeping carbs down it's because you've found a way of eating at a deficit that you find sustainable.
Are you suggesting if OP isn't losing she needs to eat more? [/quote]
I should have indicated in my first post that I think everyone is really an experiment of one. We each embark on this journey, pick a diet we feel will suit us best and then recalibrate as needed until we hit something that works for us. For me personally, high carb diets don't work. This is partly because eating carbs makes me want to eat more and more carbs, which makes it hard to stay in a deficit. But even when I use willpower to enforce the calorie intake, I don't lose wright because my thyroid shuts down and my metabolism slows to a halt.
This led me to try Atkins, which I've since modified to vlc paleo. For the first time in my life I could lose weight while feeling satiated. It works for me and it works for a lot of people.
If you know anything about very low carb diets, it's standard advise to recommend additional calories, particularly when weight loss stalls. 1500 isn't much, frankly, so it seems like a good place to start. The other option is to try to increase carbs very slightly to see if that helps - too low can sometimes prevent weight loss in my experience.
And finally, the whole calories in- calories out is too facile. It's simple - we are not a closed system. There are multiple hormonal pathways that control how calories are used and the avenues the body has to maintain stasis. Obviously, over-eating is over-eating and I am NOT saying that calories don't matter, only that it's far too complex to measure accurately. I recently read "The Secret Life of Fat" and thought it was a great book because it covers all of the myriad of ways our body manages fat. I'd recommend it to anyone looking to lose weight.
I wish all of us the best of luck in our weight loss journey - whatever works for you is working, right?
0 -
jajohnso77 wrote: »Thanks! Ten years ago I did a high calorie LCHF with a lot of success actually - very similar to Sam Feltham's results but I didn't take in quite as many per day as he did. I only took in about 2700 calories a day which included 24 grams of carbs and I lost pretty steadily and regularly with minimal exercise.
Eating "about" 2700 calories a day ... how did you measure your intake?
I was a younger man then and only knew how to cook one thing. 3 egg omelette with either 3 hotdogs chopped up or ground beef mixed in and a handful of cheese on top to melt. Three times a day, 7 days a week. I'd also drink Diet Coke and enjoy a spoonful of peanut butter and sugar-free jello too. Some days I would do a peanut butter atkins bar if I was out of peanut butter and really had a sweet tooth.
I've learned to cook many more things and much healthier things since then. My menu at the time wasn't impressive but it still worked until I lost all the weight, got bored, didn't maintain properly and fell back into bad habits. C'est la vie.1 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »jajohnso77 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »jajohnso77 wrote: »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.
I don't know. Why wouldn't you? Have you had problems with a high calorie LCHF diet in the past? It sounds like if I did the same thing that Sam did you wouldn't believe me either, so I guess I'll just stick with what I've been doing. Thanks!
I love low carb, high fat eating as much as anyone else here. Been doing it for over three years. Lost 50lbs and have kept it off easily.
But.
I lost the weight because I was consuming fewer calories than I was burning. I maintain my weight because I eat the same number of calories as I burn. While my husband was deployed I decided to do a short bulking cycle of 12 weeks, with the goal of gaining 6 lbs. I ate around 2300-2400 calories per day (my maintenance is about 1950) and lifted 3-4 days a week. I put on 6 lbs (in about ten weeks). All the while eating LCHF. Then I cut for the next 6 weeks, still LCHF. I've lost 5 of the six I gained (and look better now ). You can lose, gain, or maintain on LCHF. I prefer it because it is quite satiating and I like the food. But make no mistake, you still need to watch calories. You can definitely overeat even when you keep the carbs low.
You could quite easily prove to yourself that you can indeed gain on LCHF. Just up your calories an extra 200-300 per day for a few weeks. You will put on weight. No matter how low the carbs are.
Thanks! Ten years ago I did a high calorie LCHF with a lot of success actually - very similar to Sam Feltham's results but I didn't take in quite as many per day as he did. I only took in about 2700 calories a day which included 24 grams of carbs and I lost pretty steadily and regularly with minimal exercise.
I'm guessing that no one here believes that's possible because I must be violating laws of physics, etc - but what if - what if it's not the human body as a whole that is the "isolated system"? What if you just focus on the fat cell? What if a fat cell has been having fatty acids pouring in and out freely and then the intake of extra carbs begins the insulin secretion and starts creating triglycerides and storing them for a long time. Then one day the storage stops because you've cut off the carbs. Now you're in a state of ketosis and your body is breaking down those stored up triglycerides back into flowing fatty acids for energy and you're expelling the excess ketones through air and urine.
Would that process still violate laws of thermodynamics? Would I still need to output more than I input to lose weight?
So you're in maintenance then? Us maintainers are a rare breed and it's always nice to find a fellow one
Oh, lord no. I wish. I was young, dumb and screwed it all because I got bored with the food I was eating and didn't know any better. Been back on the wagon seriously for about 6 weeks. If you've been maintaining, congrats! Much respect. 1 -
fitchick256 wrote: »
Check the evidence, or pick up one of the many fascinating books that outline body metabolism and food storage. What you eat DOES matter. The only way I ever lose weight is to keep carbs down. The one adjustment I might recommend for the original poster is to try eating a few more calories - it's possible that your results will improve.
What you seem to be forgetting is that by keeping your carb intake low, your protein and fat intake naturally increased. For you, proteins and fats are more satiating than carbs, meaning you're less hungry throughout the day. And less hunger begets less eating, which begets a caloric deficit. It's great that you've found a method of eating that makes it easier for you to maintain a caloric deficit, but to say that carbs in and of themselves are the key to weight gain/loss is not accurate. As stated countless times in this thread, it's about eating less than you burn.4 -
fitchick256 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. 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?
Check the evidence, or pick up one of the many fascinating books that outline body metabolism and food storage. What you eat DOES matter. The only way I ever lose weight is to keep carbs down. The one adjustment I might recommend for the original poster is to try eating a few more calories - it's possible that your results will improve.
Seriously? I'm glad it works for you, but blanket statements not backed by science just does not fly.
I don't want to waste money on books when I can obtain scientific studies from Google Scholar for FREE. I don't want to line some quacks pockets...
I've done low carb. It caused me grief.. my digestive system hated it and still freaks out if I go over 60g of fat. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's bad for everyone if it didn't work for me.
I've lost 100lbs eating moderate to highish carbs. Why? I weigh my food. All of it. I did an experiment with LC and moderation with the same deficit and weighing food. In the end, I lost the same amount of weight on both WOEs. I was supervised by my ex dietitian. Yep... someone with a degree.
It all boils down to CICO. Low fat, high carb, low carb, high protein: it's all apart of CICO.
Science is a beautiful thing..9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions