Misconception of LCHF: Post for Weight Loss
JohnnyLowCarb
Posts: 418 Member
Ok...I have read enough of these posts & articles to chime in. A LCHF or Keto diet for those looking to loss weight (many do this WOE for other reasons - I am talking to those who are trying to lose weight) the goal of this WOE is to eat less, not find a way to eat more! Period.
I see so many articles promoting LCHF as a diet where you don't have to count calories - for weight loss - this is WRONG!
Whether you are LCHF, Keto, Paleo, Low Fat, Mediterranean, Grapefruit Diet...etc. the math still applies, less calories in, more weight off. I chose LCHF because I did not want to eat rice cakes and be miserable on my calorie deficit WOE. Bacon, Eggs, Meat, full fat dressings, butter etc.. that is something I could live with and lose weight!
It's finding a diet that you can stick to long term that counts. So, the goal is to find the combination of LCHF foods that keeps you full enough, long enough, that over the course of a day, week, month - your total calories in is less than burned and you lose weight.
I was like so many at the start, obsessed with how much food I could eat, what recipes could I find to make and make a lot of, added extra fat to everything (hey the more is better right - nope).
Bottom line: LCHF is a WOE that you can turn your body from a Sugar/Carb Burner to a Fat Burner. Fat burning of your own fat will come from energy needed but there is not enough consumed fat to burn so the body taps the reserves. But if you don't watch your calories and add extra fat for the sake of the diet, you just consumed more fat calories for your body to burn first - before it gets to the reserved fat we all carry and try to get rid of.
The best of part of a well managed LCHF and/or Keto diet is that done right (this is different for everyone - this means finding the combination of food that fits your macros) you will feel full for a long period of time and not have the desire to eat as much (or at all). Thus reducing your overall calories!
I see so many articles promoting LCHF as a diet where you don't have to count calories - for weight loss - this is WRONG!
Whether you are LCHF, Keto, Paleo, Low Fat, Mediterranean, Grapefruit Diet...etc. the math still applies, less calories in, more weight off. I chose LCHF because I did not want to eat rice cakes and be miserable on my calorie deficit WOE. Bacon, Eggs, Meat, full fat dressings, butter etc.. that is something I could live with and lose weight!
It's finding a diet that you can stick to long term that counts. So, the goal is to find the combination of LCHF foods that keeps you full enough, long enough, that over the course of a day, week, month - your total calories in is less than burned and you lose weight.
I was like so many at the start, obsessed with how much food I could eat, what recipes could I find to make and make a lot of, added extra fat to everything (hey the more is better right - nope).
Bottom line: LCHF is a WOE that you can turn your body from a Sugar/Carb Burner to a Fat Burner. Fat burning of your own fat will come from energy needed but there is not enough consumed fat to burn so the body taps the reserves. But if you don't watch your calories and add extra fat for the sake of the diet, you just consumed more fat calories for your body to burn first - before it gets to the reserved fat we all carry and try to get rid of.
The best of part of a well managed LCHF and/or Keto diet is that done right (this is different for everyone - this means finding the combination of food that fits your macros) you will feel full for a long period of time and not have the desire to eat as much (or at all). Thus reducing your overall calories!
6
Replies
-
I think most lchf people are aware of this. Many when they say they don't "count calories" literally mean they don't log/track/count the actual calories because they are naturally satiated by the foods they are eating thus eat less without having to force a deficit, it just happens therefore they don't need to "count calories" not that calories don't matter7
-
People lost weight for eons without counting calories, or even knowing what a calorie is. I'm not knocking someone who counts calories, whatever works is all good, but I'm not understanding this need to tell people what they need to do. You did it on a different thread as well. The great thing about this group is that people are accepted despite their differences. Counting calories brings up issues for some people and if they can find a way to lose without doing it, why not? It doesn't mean calories don't count, it just means they manage to stay in deficit without counting. Personally not counting and weighing and expecting to have to do that for life makes this way more sustainable for me. I do count occasionally to make sure I'm on track but for the most part I don't and yet I'm losing weight, albeit slowly.9
-
I think a lot of this WOE should have a 'your mileage may vary' tag attached to it. So many things work for one person but don't work for another. Or work, but differently. One size most definitely does not fit all.
I didn't count calories or even carbs, but I still lost a lot of weight. It wasn't until I was into my 2nd year of weight loss that my sister convinced me to join MFP and start counting things.5 -
I agree with you both. I think the OP is coming from a good place, wanting to get information out there but yes YMMV all the way with this WOE (and any woe really)4
-
I'll concur with the part about finding a "macro allocation" that satiates me and therefore minimizes over eating. I'll also agree that calories matter especially when one is trying to find what satiates them.
I had HUGE problems with hunger after weight loss (non keto approach) and increasing fat and lowering carbs helped dramatically with that for me. Adhering to calories became easier via suddenly being satiated.
So, I guess I'm agreeing with the general concept of the original post.3 -
I'll concur with the part about finding a "macro allocation" that satiates me and therefore minimizes over eating. I'll also agree that calories matter especially when one is trying to find what satiates them.
I had HUGE problems with hunger after weight loss (non keto approach) and increasing fat and lowering carbs helped dramatically with that for me. Adhering to calories became easier via suddenly being satiated.
So, I guess I'm agreeing with the general concept of the original post.
I agree with your agree! Happy Friday!0 -
Um, what the he'll is a WOE??0
-
mtague7733 wrote: »Um, what the he'll is a WOE??
Way Of Eating.1 -
JohnnyLowCarb wrote: »Ok...I have read enough of these posts & articles to chime in. A LCHF or Keto diet for those looking to loss weight (many do this WOE for other reasons - I am talking to those who are trying to lose weight) the goal of this WOE is to eat less, not find a way to eat more! Period.
I see so many articles promoting LCHF as a diet where you don't have to count calories - for weight loss - this is WRONG!
Whether you are LCHF, Keto, Paleo, Low Fat, Mediterranean, Grapefruit Diet...etc. the math still applies, less calories in, more weight off. I chose LCHF because I did not want to eat rice cakes and be miserable on my calorie deficit WOE. Bacon, Eggs, Meat, full fat dressings, butter etc.. that is something I could live with and lose weight!
It's finding a diet that you can stick to long term that counts. So, the goal is to find the combination of LCHF foods that keeps you full enough, long enough, that over the course of a day, week, month - your total calories in is less than burned and you lose weight.
I was like so many at the start, obsessed with how much food I could eat, what recipes could I find to make and make a lot of, added extra fat to everything (hey the more is better right - nope).
Bottom line: LCHF is a WOE that you can turn your body from a Sugar/Carb Burner to a Fat Burner. Fat burning of your own fat will come from energy needed but there is not enough consumed fat to burn so the body taps the reserves. But if you don't watch your calories and add extra fat for the sake of the diet, you just consumed more fat calories for your body to burn first - before it gets to the reserved fat we all carry and try to get rid of.
The best of part of a well managed LCHF and/or Keto diet is that done right (this is different for everyone - this means finding the combination of food that fits your macros) you will feel full for a long period of time and not have the desire to eat as much (or at all). Thus reducing your overall calories!
@JohnnyLowCarb hang in there. LCHF in my case quickly addressed my physical/emotional need to count anything. Give LCHF timr to fix your underlying need to count anything. Keep in mind only you will know when you are no longer broken. One day you will realize your brain and hormones have healed and normal intuitive eating is freeing up your time for matters really requiring your conscious brain.2 -
I did a low carb WOE before without counting calories (Dukan, so it was low carb, low fat, high protein) and it worked great for me.
On keto/LCHF I've counted but based on my previous experience, I get how just following general guidelines instead can work for some people. Definitely takes some experimenting though.1 -
mtague7733 wrote: »Um, what the he'll is a WOE??
Take a look at this thread: And all the other different sources of information in the Launch Pad, will help you too...2 -
Im counting calories at the moment because I'm quite new to this WOE. My question is I really don't feel hungry and some days finding hard to eat the 1200 calories which I already a deficit from my TDEE (1780). I'm doing IF too. Energy, mental clarity, sleep, have all improved. So my question sorry to highjack this post, is it fine to be under your minimum?4
-
@bluets2011 I'm experiencing similar, also curious about this!3
-
@LizinLowell mind you I'm not complaining ;-). Having been an emotional and binge eater for all my adult life, this new experience of seeing food in front of me and having no desire of stuffing my face is making me happy. Just want to know if it's an issue.3
-
bluets2011 wrote: »Im counting calories at the moment because I'm quite new to this WOE. My question is I really don't feel hungry and some days finding hard to eat the 1200 calories which I already a deficit from my TDEE (1780). I'm doing IF too. Energy, mental clarity, sleep, have all improved. So my question sorry to highjack this post, is it fine to be under your minimum?
As far as I am given to understand, aim if you can, to be on or under your carbs. On, or a little above your proteins, and use fats to complement - but not as a replacement for - protein. Fats can also be useful on a fast, if you need a quick hit of something to keep you going during an "I'm not eating at the moment" period.
It's ok to be below fats, but preferable to be as close as possible to proteins.
If my calories go a little into the red, I look at what's caused it.
If it's fats, I'm not concerned.
If it's proteins yippee-ay-yay.
If it's carbs - damn, I gotta pull back tomorrow!
5 -
@LizinLowell @bluets2011
My thinking is that as long as:
1. You've already adapted to burning fat for fuel; and
2. You're not shortchanging yourself on protein,
then you're OK. You don't need carbs, and you probably have enough fat in your strategic energy reserves to fuel the fire for the foreseeable future,
Practically, I suspect most of us who have experienced the joy of "I ain't hungry" also felt the agony of "I could eat a horse" all too soon.....
7 -
@RalfLott thank you! I was thinking that. I didn't think twice about "eating a horse" before, even when I was not hungry. And now I just feel genuinely good. Energetic, mental clarity and happy. And yes I have lots of fat ready to be burnt for fuel :-)5
-
bluets2011 wrote: »@RalfLott thank you! I was thinking that. I didn't think twice about "eating a horse" before, even when I was not hungry. And now I just feel genuinely good. Energetic, mental clarity and happy. And yes I have lots of fat ready to be burnt for fuel :-)
It's amazing side effect of LCHF but it doesn't last lol. You will feel hungry again but never HANGRY, this WOE helps our bodies adapt to going longer times without meals (because it's utilizing our stored fat). I think the hardest part of this WOE is the mental aspect of it, at least for me. But it's a 100% sustainable and has worked amazingly to control my diabetes.8 -
Oops wrong crowd
or 
3 -
OK thanks from me also for all the answers about not meeting calorie goals. Very helpful. for myself, I'm mostly meeting protein and I'm always right on for where I want my carbs so I'm not going to worry about being too low on calories as long as I feel nourished. I'm ever vigilant/nervous about eating disorder behavior as I know how easy it is to fall down that rabbit hole and I don't want to fool myself everything is fine if I'm actually veering sideways.2
-
Enjoy your well-earned reward of not being hungry!4
-
@genmon00 awnnnn thought it would last. Yes I'm on my first month yet so this not being starving all the time is a great feeling. But it's good too when this phase fades away being able to feel hungry again. :-)0
-
@AlexandraCarlyle thanks! I'm always below my carbs (10%) but as not feeling hungry at all it's hard to reach fat 65%) and protein (25%). But as others mentioned here this phase won't last so no damage in eating 900 calories some days when I can't physically eat more.1
-
I see so many articles promoting LCHF as a diet where you don't have to count calories - for weight loss - this is WRONG!
No it's not.
Counting calories and eating at a deficit are two completely different, independent things.
A caloric deficit is required. Calorie counting is not, necessarily.5 -
bluets2011 wrote: »@AlexandraCarlyle thanks! I'm always below my carbs (10%) but as not feeling hungry at all it's hard to reach fat 65%) and protein (25%). But as others mentioned here this phase won't last so no damage in eating 900 calories some days when I can't physically eat more.
Please forgive the unsolicited tip.... I would urge you to use grams, not %, for your goals, as the different macro nutrient classes simply don't need to be in any particular proportion to one another. . For example, you don't need to reach a given fat % in your diet, especially if your, er, onboard pantry is well-stocked.
YMMV..... I'm in the 140-150-lb range, and I set my numbers (for now) like so:
1. Minimum daily protein (around 110g)
2. Maximum net carbs (around 30g)
3. Daily calorie range (1400-1800, - on the lower end, if my BG and/or weight are trending up)
4. 12-hour food break daily
5. 16-hour food break at least 2x weekly
Notes - I use the keto calculator at ketogains.com, and I count calories religiously (a personal choice).
5 -
@RalfLott might have been unsolicited but I'm really grateful for your tips. I'm just one month in my journey so reading a lot to learn. I'm not sure in grams what are my macros. Carbs I know max 30g a day. I'll check the ketogains.com site. Thank you :-)1
-
bluets2011 wrote: »@RalfLott might have been unsolicited but I'm really grateful for your tips. I'm just one month in my journey so reading a lot to learn. I'm not sure in grams what are my macros. Carbs I know max 30g a day. I'll check the ketogains.com site. Thank you :-)
BTW, Phinney and Volek 's New Atkins for a New You is a great, simple intro to keto, written by experts.5 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »I see so many articles promoting LCHF as a diet where you don't have to count calories - for weight loss - this is WRONG!
No it's not.
Counting calories and eating at a deficit are two completely different, independent things.
A caloric deficit is required. Calorie counting is not, necessarily.
Great point, and good to keep in mind.1 -
bluets2011 wrote: »@AlexandraCarlyle thanks! I'm always below my carbs (10%) but as not feeling hungry at all it's hard to reach fat 65%) and protein (25%). But as others mentioned here this phase won't last so no damage in eating 900 calories some days when I can't physically eat more.
Please forgive the unsolicited tip.... I would urge you to use grams, not %, for your goals, as the different macro nutrient classes simply don't need to be in any particular proportion to one another. . For example, you don't need to reach a given fat % in your diet, especially if your, er, onboard pantry is well-stocked.
IMO, the advice to focus on grams is good because of protein too. I aim to get 100 g of protein, and that remains constant however many calories I am eating (it's based on my LBM), because if I did happen to have a very low cal day I'd not want to be eating my usual percentage of protein, as that would be very low too. I similarly think of it as carbs below a specific number (although my number is a bit higher -- cap of 60 g total, 40 g net), protein to 100 g (or more, I don't care because I am not in medical keto and at a deficit I think it's unlikely protein kicks you out of it anyway), and then the rest fat, with the idea that on a low cal day I supply more from body fat.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »bluets2011 wrote: »@AlexandraCarlyle thanks! I'm always below my carbs (10%) but as not feeling hungry at all it's hard to reach fat 65%) and protein (25%). But as others mentioned here this phase won't last so no damage in eating 900 calories some days when I can't physically eat more.
Please forgive the unsolicited tip.... I would urge you to use grams, not %, for your goals, as the different macro nutrient classes simply don't need to be in any particular proportion to one another. . For example, you don't need to reach a given fat % in your diet, especially if your, er, onboard pantry is well-stocked.
IMO, the advice to focus on grams is good because of protein too. I aim to get 100 g of protein, and that remains constant however many calories I am eating (it's based on my LBM), because if I did happen to have a very low cal day I'd not want to be eating my usual percentage of protein, as that would be very low too. I similarly think of it as carbs below a specific number (although my number is a bit higher -- cap of 60 g total, 40 g net), protein to 100 g (or more, I don't care because I am not in medical keto and at a deficit I think it's unlikely protein kicks you out of it anyway), and then the rest fat, with the idea that on a low cal day I supply more from body fat.
That's it, precisely!1
This discussion has been closed.