Reminder: Low Carb is not about starving yourself until you're skinny.
FIT_Goat
Posts: 4,224 Member
Hi, I am FIT_Goat, the resident low-carb bigot. If this is the first post of mine you've ever read, I apologize in advance.
As we come upon another new year, we are sure to be inundated by people new to low-carb who have a new year's resolution to lose weight. It is why you joined MFP! You're going to do it this time. You're going to count your calories and restrict your carbs! You're going to have that great summer body. You are going to lose two pounds a week, every week, until you hit your goal. It is going to get harder because you'll have to eat less as you get closer to your goal weight. MFP says you should be eating like 1400 calories a day (or less), and you need to calculate the right macros to fit into that calorie goal. Maybe 26% protein (90 grams), 6% carbs (20 grams), and 68% fat (106 grams). That fits into those goals and it looks so perfectly Keto, LCHF, Atkins, or whatever other {kitten} brand of low-carb you're itching to do.
You're already doing it wrong. Step away from the TDEE, BMR, and calorie deficit calculators. Step away from the macro calculators. Seriously, throw it all out. Don't worry about throwing out the baby with the bathwater; it's all dirty water. There's nothing you need to keep. This is going to sound insane on a group on MFP, but low-carb does not involve calorie restriction/counting.
All the original low carb plans say to not count calories. You eat as much as you want, until you are full, and you only restrict carbs. Most of these plans were designed before the hyper-palatable low-carb junk foods and fat-bombs were a thing. So, don't get into the habit of stuffing those into your mouth just yet. Your diet should be built around whole foods, as close to their natural forms as makes sense, and you eat until you are full. A large serving of fatty meat with eggs, cheese, and [ugh] even some green vegetables. Weigh the veggies and pay attention to their carbs, those will add up, but that is all you're going to weigh or restrict. When you are hungry and have no carbs left, eat more meat or have some hard-boiled eggs. What if you're over your calorie limit? Seriously?! Pay attention here. No calorie limit! If you're hungry, eat.
No one here is going to deny that people can starve themselves thinner. The argument is that it is nearly impossible to starve yourself into good health. Low-carb and minimally processed foods are the path to good health. When you eat this way, you will be getting healthy. A [pleasant] side-effect of that is that you will quickly and painlessly approach a healthy weight. Your goal is to heal your hormone balance, your gut, and the rest of your body. When you do that, the weight comes off. And, the weight stays off while you continue to feed your body correctly. It's not a struggle. There is no suffering. It almost feels like cheating. It's not. It's just so easy and pleasant because you're doing what your body wanted all along.
Yeah, adapting to this new way of fueling your body won't be easy. That's why we're here. We've gone down this path. You might not lose weight as fast as if you were starving yourself, but that lost weight comes with a cost. You will pay that cost eventually. Some people get frustrated because they reach their goal weight and realized that they can't eat to satiety without regaining weight. That's the cost. They may need to go backwards to get where they want to be.
Do it! Forget the calories. Forget the macros. Eat real foods. Limit only your carbs. Trust the process. Give it a couple months. Trust the process. Be a low-carb bigot like Goat!
---
I was going to formalize my position in the thread "Doesn't Counting Calories Count?". I never got around to finishing it up. Lots of good discussion on there and information. The Bailor video is highly recommended for all low-carbers. You should read that thread. Seriously, I almost thought about reposting the whole thing into this post. It is worth the time.
Other old Goat quotes about calories
Note: I have since changed my mind about protein and am comfortable with much higher levels (like 150-200g a day).
Clearly, I have been fighting this battle for a long time. It might be a losing one, but those who have come along for the no-restriction ride have been grateful enough to make it worthwhile for me.
As we come upon another new year, we are sure to be inundated by people new to low-carb who have a new year's resolution to lose weight. It is why you joined MFP! You're going to do it this time. You're going to count your calories and restrict your carbs! You're going to have that great summer body. You are going to lose two pounds a week, every week, until you hit your goal. It is going to get harder because you'll have to eat less as you get closer to your goal weight. MFP says you should be eating like 1400 calories a day (or less), and you need to calculate the right macros to fit into that calorie goal. Maybe 26% protein (90 grams), 6% carbs (20 grams), and 68% fat (106 grams). That fits into those goals and it looks so perfectly Keto, LCHF, Atkins, or whatever other {kitten} brand of low-carb you're itching to do.
You're already doing it wrong. Step away from the TDEE, BMR, and calorie deficit calculators. Step away from the macro calculators. Seriously, throw it all out. Don't worry about throwing out the baby with the bathwater; it's all dirty water. There's nothing you need to keep. This is going to sound insane on a group on MFP, but low-carb does not involve calorie restriction/counting.
All the original low carb plans say to not count calories. You eat as much as you want, until you are full, and you only restrict carbs. Most of these plans were designed before the hyper-palatable low-carb junk foods and fat-bombs were a thing. So, don't get into the habit of stuffing those into your mouth just yet. Your diet should be built around whole foods, as close to their natural forms as makes sense, and you eat until you are full. A large serving of fatty meat with eggs, cheese, and [ugh] even some green vegetables. Weigh the veggies and pay attention to their carbs, those will add up, but that is all you're going to weigh or restrict. When you are hungry and have no carbs left, eat more meat or have some hard-boiled eggs. What if you're over your calorie limit? Seriously?! Pay attention here. No calorie limit! If you're hungry, eat.
No one here is going to deny that people can starve themselves thinner. The argument is that it is nearly impossible to starve yourself into good health. Low-carb and minimally processed foods are the path to good health. When you eat this way, you will be getting healthy. A [pleasant] side-effect of that is that you will quickly and painlessly approach a healthy weight. Your goal is to heal your hormone balance, your gut, and the rest of your body. When you do that, the weight comes off. And, the weight stays off while you continue to feed your body correctly. It's not a struggle. There is no suffering. It almost feels like cheating. It's not. It's just so easy and pleasant because you're doing what your body wanted all along.
Yeah, adapting to this new way of fueling your body won't be easy. That's why we're here. We've gone down this path. You might not lose weight as fast as if you were starving yourself, but that lost weight comes with a cost. You will pay that cost eventually. Some people get frustrated because they reach their goal weight and realized that they can't eat to satiety without regaining weight. That's the cost. They may need to go backwards to get where they want to be.
Do it! Forget the calories. Forget the macros. Eat real foods. Limit only your carbs. Trust the process. Give it a couple months. Trust the process. Be a low-carb bigot like Goat!
---
I was going to formalize my position in the thread "Doesn't Counting Calories Count?". I never got around to finishing it up. Lots of good discussion on there and information. The Bailor video is highly recommended for all low-carbers. You should read that thread. Seriously, I almost thought about reposting the whole thing into this post. It is worth the time.
Other old Goat quotes about calories
Most people who talk about eating 3000+ calories a day, and how it's easy to do on low-carb, don't actually eat 3000+ calories a day. It's significantly more difficult than people give it credit for. I've tried to average really massive amounts of calories (primarily to test the possibility of gaining weight without carbs), and it just becomes a chore. While anyone can eat over 3000 calories in a single day, doing it day after day just won't happen without effort (or a huge TDEE that justifies that intake). I think the longest I've made it eating 4,000 calories a day was for just under a week. And, the last few days were absolutely miserable. The last thing I wanted to do was think about food, even worse was eating it.
Fat is very calorie dense, but that doesn't make it easy to consume. About the only way I can make large amounts of fat easy to consume is to mix in some artificial sweeteners (which is one reason I am anti-AS and most fat-bombs). How many people here have consumed a whole cup of plain heavy cream in a sitting? How about drank a whole stick of melted unsalted butter? I'm willing to bet that I'm the only one with my hand raised. Both those are about 800 calories of pure fat. In both cases, you could not have paid me $1,000 to consume another cup/stick right after. And, I didn't want to eat anything or even think of food for hours.
I am sure there are people who over-eat and don't lose weight, at first or for brief periods of time. But, that's nearly always temporary and doesn't result in weight gain unless you were extremely malnourished going into it. Others are convinced they need to count because they don't trust their own body's signals. Maybe the signals are messed up because of years of poor nutrition and hormones and don't work right. Of course, you only delay the healing and correction of those issues by not allowing the body ample nutrition and opportunity to recalibrate. At their core, the vast majority of low-carb programs do not include calorie counting in any way. Most of them only recommend further carb restriction (all the way down to zero) for those who aren't losing weight.
Calories exist. Your body will have to do something with all the calories you consume and remove from fat stores, if you're going to lose weight. But, you have no real way of knowing how many calories your body will burn through each day. Will someone gain weight eating 6,000 calories a day for an extended period of time? Probably. Could an obese person accidentally eat enough (because they didn't count their calories) to gain weight? That I would like to see happen.
I'm about to wander way off into wacky-land, for some of you. I'll probably step on some keto-toes. This is all my opinion. Much of it is supported with many of the books I've read about various low carb diets, but you can reject it as lunatic ramblings if you want. Just don't forget, you can't win an argument against a goat in a suit.
Don't get me wrong. Keto did a lot of good for me, but there are some things that are "keto" that drive me crazy. I could be completely wrong. At the risk of committing a "No True Scottsman" fallacy, I've got to say that if you're having trouble being satisfied, naturally, eating an amount (on a low-carb/keto diet) that causes your weight to normalize on its own, then you're probably doing something wrong or your body is recovering from years of adapting to famine-level calories and will get on board when it realizes that this isn't just a temporary thing.
If you're not losing weight and you're adding butter to coffee, you're doing something wrong. I like butter in my coffee, sometimes. It's delicious. But, it's not something I think is a great idea unless you're using it as an IF type thing to replace a morning meal that would otherwise spike your insulin. And, if you're adding butter to your coffee and eating too much, that's the first thing I would kick out.
Similar things with nuts, cheese, fat bombs, and alcohol. While they all can play a role in a successful low carb diet, they are things which can make it nearly impossible to eat without restriction.
First, and foremost, a low carb meal should be centered around a fatty meat. It should be the first thing you eat as well. Then you should think of low carb sides (vegetables, salad, etc.) that you might want with the meat. For example, "Strong Medicine" advocates for a minimum of 8 oz of what would be equivalent to 75%/25% ground beef three times a day. After you've eaten the meat and fat, you could have more meat and from a limited selection of vegetables (although even those were removed if you weren't losing weight). Plus, you get a cup of coffee. This was the minimum for all patients on the program to lose weight. That's around 2,000 calories as a minimum each day. I'm not saying you need to go that high. But, if you are hungry, your first instinct should be to eat a meal centered around a fatty meat.
[ Edit: This would still be a very ketogenic diet, assuming the minimums. It would be around 108 grams of protein, 172 grams of fat, 0 grams of carbs... 78% fat and 22% protein. So, it's high meat... but not high protein. As, I believe most low-carb diets should be. ]
Second, added sauces and fats are excellent, assuming that using them is still allowing you to make your goals and they aren't playing a leading role in a meal. If you've got lean meat, a heavy cream based sauce is an excellent addition to balance the meal out with some fat. If you want to add some butter to make the vegetables more palatable, that's probably fine. A 4 oz chicken breast with 1,000 calories of Alfredo sauce just makes no sense. Fat is great, don't fear fat. Fat should be the majority of your calories, but it doesn't need to be the majority of what you eat.
All your calorie data from a mixed diet is useless when eating low carb. I can't use the fact that I gained weight at 1,900 calories when eating a "balanced" diet to help me determine a calorie goal to lose on low-carb. In fact, I lost almost all my weight averaging around 1,900 calories on low-carb. Have people gained weight doing everything right on low carb? Yeah, I, personally, know someone who gained weight for six months. They started at a "healthy" weight that they had been starving and exercising to maintain. They gained weight for six months when the stopped counting calories. Then the weight all went back off just as fast as it came on. Still without counting, except the person now felt and looked better. And, that person was now able to eat until satisfied all the time and didn't need to exercise, unless they wanted to.
I know people here are struggling to keep making progress at 1,400 calories a day. And, maybe 1,400 is the right amount for you. But, if it was, it wouldn't be something you needed to struggle to manage. It would be something that would happen automatically. If you're struggling to make it happen, you're probably messing something up. Chances are, you know what it is too. My areas have always been cheese and nuts. I would know I ate too much on them. I would feel it.
In the end, it all comes down to my belief that everyone should be able to trust their body and eat as much as they want while maintaining a healthy and normal weight. For some, especially those with metabolic issues and/or diabetes, this may be a pipe-dream. I'd like to believe those are the exceptions though, and not the rule.
Note: I have since changed my mind about protein and am comfortable with much higher levels (like 150-200g a day).
I think part of my difference in perspective is that I've moved beyond considering "weight loss" as my goal. I would rather be 10 pounds into the "over-weight" BMI range, while able to eat to satiety and enjoy good health, than be a perfect BMI with imperfect health and needing to monitor every bite that goes into my mouth. Sure, it would be great to be a 23 BMI and/or rock some serious abs. With the removal of weight loss as a concrete goal, the actual rate of weight loss moves down in importance. I probably could have lost two pounds a week instead of the one-ish that I did. But, that would have compromised other goals.
I've been in the other place though. I remember being 230 pounds in college (a BMI of nearly 40 for my height) and thinking I would do anything to lose even 50 pounds. I would be willing to starve myself to make it happen. I didn't "want" it to be muscle, but I wouldn't have worried about muscle loss as long as the scale kept going down. I've tried to starve myself thin before, it was miserable and left me unable to eat even close to satisfying amounts without gaining weight. And, it was all for naught because the weight came back on anyway. Even when I was at my thinnest, I felt horrible the whole time. I looked better, but I wasn't happy with my body or how I felt.
It's hard to not care about weight when you're way up there in it. It wasn't even easy for me this time, until I passed a certain threshold where I felt better mentally about the number on the scale. Days where it goes up and/or stays up can be frustrating, even if you're using trends to minimize the fluctuations. I don't know that most people are willing to just let go and trust that things will end up alright. I had a history of failure when I didn't control what I ate. Letting go was extremely difficult. I had to take the batteries out of my kitchen scale and give them to my wife to hide, to stop myself from weighing everything. I never took the batteries out of the bathroom scale, that's the one thing I do think is useful. The change in average weekly weight on a month-to-month basis is useful for knowing that you're on the right track. I do stand by that.
Anyway, here's another goat picture.
Clearly, I have been fighting this battle for a long time. It might be a losing one, but those who have come along for the no-restriction ride have been grateful enough to make it worthwhile for me.
18
Replies
-
Thats why i am doing a mix of palo and low carbs, cant be doing watching my calories intake. I try to keep to 50 carbs and below but if i do go over, then hay ho, as long is not over 100 carbs. Do have a rather active life,with work and kids/hubby.0
-
This is great advice! Thank you for posting.0
-
We've been approving new people all day. I know most of them won't listen to me. I still have to be me. The day I stop telling people to not count calories is probably the day I closed my account.13
-
I've been (vegetarian) LCHF for about 7 months now and unfortunately don't seem to be able to eat without calorie-restriction and still lose weight
When I was just doing low carb with no calorie restriction, at ~1700+ calories I would still put on weight or stall. 1400 calories + LCHF seems to work best for me, allowing me to lose 16kg over the past 6 months. I've gone from a BMI of 41 to 35 and am aiming for 25.
I'm 160cm, female and pretty sedentary. Maybe it's also because I don't eat any meat or fish.
I wish calorie counting wasn't necessary for me, it sounds like a dream.1 -
Shadioutwo wrote: »I've been (vegetarian) LCHF for about 7 months now and unfortunately don't seem to be able to eat without calorie-restriction and still lose weight When I was just doing low carb with no calorie restriction, at ~1700+ calories I would still put on weight or stall. 1400 calories + LCHF seems to work best for me, allowing me to lose 16kg over the past 6 months. I've gone from a BMI of 41 to 35 and am aiming for 25.
I'm 160cm, female and pretty sedentary. Maybe it's also because I don't eat any meat or fish.
I wish calorie counting wasn't necessary for me, it sounds like a dream.
It stinks but you aren't alone.
I lasted 3 months before I had to start counting calories to continue losing weight. Many many people get a sense of satiety with LCHF/keto that just murders their appetite so they naturally eat less. I didn't. So I had to create limits.
The advice to not starve yourself skinny still applies, though. Whoever gets to eat the most while still losing weight wins. Slow and steady FINISHES the race.7 -
I am the wrong person to guide a vegetarian LCHF diet. I mean, I run the low-carber carnivore club and am the basically the opposite of a vegetarian. I can't think of any of the original low-carb plans that were vegetarian, only ones that have been modified to fit the constraints of a vegetarian lifestyle. It doesn't completely shock me. There are some people who need nearly zero grams of carbs, and my standard advice to those struggling is to keep cutting the carbs until they find the level that works for them. I imagine you run into a level where you just can't cut the carbs any lower and keep meeting your nutrient needs as a vegetarian.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with being vegetarian. It is just that vegetarianism adds additional complications that could short-circuit the advice above.3 -
The lower carb I go, the easier it seems to be to reach a calorie deficit. I can slowly gain weight at 2000kcal a day if the diet is high carb (high in processed and refined carbs) but if I eat very low carb, I will maintain or even lose at the same calorie level.
This isn't true for all low carbers. It seems to be a bit more common in those with insulin resistance, but that's just an observation and nothing proven.
I did count calories at first, but it was more to see how many calories I was eating, and check my macros, rather than to control how much I ate.3 -
Great stuff Goat!0
-
I am the wrong person to guide a vegetarian LCHF diet. I mean, I run the low-carber carnivore club and am the basically the opposite of a vegetarian. I can't think of any of the original low-carb plans that were vegetarian, only ones that have been modified to fit the constraints of a vegetarian lifestyle. It doesn't completely shock me. There are some people who need nearly zero grams of carbs, and my standard advice to those struggling is to keep cutting the carbs until they find the level that works for them. I imagine you run into a level where you just can't cut the carbs any lower and keep meeting your nutrient needs as a vegetarian.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with being vegetarian. It is just that vegetarianism adds additional complications that could short-circuit the advice above.
As you know, I never counted a single calorie while eating carnivore ~ but I can guarantee you that if I had, my case would have been the perfect example for anyone who believes that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. I put away a tremendous amount of meat, seafood, and straight-up fat... and did not stop losing body fat until I started eating carbs again.
5 -
The lower carb I go, the easier it seems to be to reach a calorie deficit. I can slowly gain weight at 2000kcal a day if the diet is high carb (high in processed and refined carbs) but if I eat very low carb, I will maintain or even lose at the same calorie level.
This isn't true for all low carbers. It seems to be a bit more common in those with insulin resistance, but that's just an observation and nothing proven.
I did count calories at first, but it was more to see how many calories I was eating, and check my macros, rather than to control how much I ate.
This has, of course, been shown in controlled studies by Dr. David Ludwig. The low carbers burned about 250 more calories than the higher carb eaters.3 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »The lower carb I go, the easier it seems to be to reach a calorie deficit. I can slowly gain weight at 2000kcal a day if the diet is high carb (high in processed and refined carbs) but if I eat very low carb, I will maintain or even lose at the same calorie level.
This isn't true for all low carbers. It seems to be a bit more common in those with insulin resistance, but that's just an observation and nothing proven.
I did count calories at first, but it was more to see how many calories I was eating, and check my macros, rather than to control how much I ate.
This has, of course, been shown in controlled studies by Dr. David Ludwig. The low carbers burned about 250 more calories than the higher carb eaters.
I hadn't heard about that study but it fits with my experience as well. I'd been doing more typical calorie counting on MFP and barely losing. Switched to keto, same calorie level and lost the 20 lbs in less than 4 months.3 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »The lower carb I go, the easier it seems to be to reach a calorie deficit. I can slowly gain weight at 2000kcal a day if the diet is high carb (high in processed and refined carbs) but if I eat very low carb, I will maintain or even lose at the same calorie level.
This isn't true for all low carbers. It seems to be a bit more common in those with insulin resistance, but that's just an observation and nothing proven.
I did count calories at first, but it was more to see how many calories I was eating, and check my macros, rather than to control how much I ate.
This has, of course, been shown in controlled studies by Dr. David Ludwig. The low carbers burned about 250 more calories than the higher carb eaters.
Oh right! I forgot about that one. He had them eating at maintenance and the low carbers needed to eat more.
Hall's study from a few years ago had the metabolic advantage at about 100 kcal, but he deemed that one statistically insignificant. 2 -
@FIT_Goat - Absolutely, sorry didn't mean to derail your thread by bringing vegetarianism into it. I follow Diet Doctor's Vegetarian Keto advice, which seems sensible and rooted in research.
It's an ongoing struggle to keep <30g carbs per day for me, as I do have to eat a few more carbs to get enough protein and nutrition. It sounds ridiculous but I didn't make the connection until now that's why I still have to keep CICO going.
Oh well, in addition to steadily losing weight, one of the best things about LCHF is how much better I feel on it! A big plate of spinach, olive oil and salt makes me feel awesome!3 -
Shadioutwo wrote: »@FIT_Goat - Absolutely, sorry didn't mean to derail your thread by bringing vegetarianism into it. I follow Diet Doctor's Vegetarian Keto advice, which seems sensible and rooted in research.
It's an ongoing struggle to keep <30g carbs per day for me, as I do have to eat a few more carbs to get enough protein and nutrition. It sounds ridiculous but I didn't make the connection until now that's why I still have to keep CICO going.
Oh well, in addition to steadily losing weight, one of the best things about LCHF is how much better I feel on it! A big plate of spinach, olive oil and salt makes me feel awesome!
No. I am glad you posted. It is just that I can't promise my advice works for your situation. I can't speak to it. You found one of the exceptions that I can't make the same claims as I make for other diets. Other people might be in the same boat as you.0 -
If you have access to it: Dr. Will Cole's book and website Ketotarian is also a great reference for plant based keto.Shadioutwo wrote: »@FIT_Goat - Absolutely, sorry didn't mean to derail your thread by bringing vegetarianism into it. I follow Diet Doctor's Vegetarian Keto advice, which seems sensible and rooted in research.
It's an ongoing struggle to keep <30g carbs per day for me, as I do have to eat a few more carbs to get enough protein and nutrition. It sounds ridiculous but I didn't make the connection until now that's why I still have to keep CICO going.
Oh well, in addition to steadily losing weight, one of the best things about LCHF is how much better I feel on it! A big plate of spinach, olive oil and salt makes me feel awesome!
Also, if you eat soy, track down BLACK SOY BEANS. A vegetarian keto dream. Smith's online sells them for cheap, but most whole foods have them by the can to try. Make sure it's black SOY and not just black beans. Eden brand. There are recipes on the internet.
3 -
Thanks for the pep talk Goat. I do find it much easier to count carbs than to count calories being so much of my meals are virtually carb free. I truly cannot be bothered to count macros and all the rest of the things that are required on the keto diet. My plan is to limit my carbs and eat on whole foods. I hope it works.0
-
Thanks, Goat, for reposting above. A good way to start 2019.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
If you have access to it: Dr. Will Cole's book and website Ketotarian is also a great reference for plant based keto.Shadioutwo wrote: »@FIT_Goat - Absolutely, sorry didn't mean to derail your thread by bringing vegetarianism into it. I follow Diet Doctor's Vegetarian Keto advice, which seems sensible and rooted in research.
It's an ongoing struggle to keep <30g carbs per day for me, as I do have to eat a few more carbs to get enough protein and nutrition. It sounds ridiculous but I didn't make the connection until now that's why I still have to keep CICO going.
Oh well, in addition to steadily losing weight, one of the best things about LCHF is how much better I feel on it! A big plate of spinach, olive oil and salt makes me feel awesome!
Also, if you eat soy, track down BLACK SOY BEANS. A vegetarian keto dream. Smith's online sells them for cheap, but most whole foods have them by the can to try. Make sure it's black SOY and not just black beans. Eden brand. There are recipes on the internet.
Oh I can't wait to try these black soy beans! Unfortunately I can't find them ANYWHERE in Australia (and I google monthly lol). Even iHerb doesn't have any
We are lucky with some great LC products here but I can't wait to try these one day when I can get hold of them.2 -
Great post! I count calories....but more as a reality check. Mostly I eat as much protein and leafy/green vegetables as I want and only limit the carbs.2
-
I think I commented somewhere that I was logging my food for the first year of my keto/carnivore period, and infrequently during the second. It was more of a desire for data collection. I don't consider logging and recording calories to be the came as "counting calories." Most people who are counting calories have a limit that they are counting up to. And, when they hit that limit, they stop eating even if they are still hungry. It's that arbitrary restriction that I oppose.
It is impossible for me to believe that someone (or some calculator or formula) knows the nutrient needs better than their own body. It's impossible for me to believe that you can know the best [healthiest] rate at which to lose weight and can force that rate of loss on a body that disagrees. You want to work with your body, not against it. When you work together, you both win. When you fight against what your body desires, it will fight back.
8 -
Ya! So happy to see all the "OG's" still here, preaching the Low Carb life! Its been about two years since I've been off MFP so I'm so glad I recognize familiar names.3
-
Yep, I am still here. Unfortunately, I lost my 1500+ day streak at some point. I was offline for too long. I never left though. I am still rambling about the same things that I was ranting about 4-5 years ago.9
-
That's good you are because people need to hear it
2 -
@FIT_Goat Thank you for posting this here! I have read so many books and websites that my head is spinning a little. My journey into KETO began when my husband was told he was at the bottom number for diabetes. Not pre-diabetic! I began reading everything I could get my hands on that was science-based about the care and feeding of a diabetic and that led me squarely to the Ketogenic way of eating. I had been using MFP to log my food for over a year by that time and had lost a considerable amount of weight...nearly 80 pounds, but I was hungry ALL.THE.TIME! When I started looking at the keto woe and at my food diary I realized a lot of what I had done to lose weight involved deleting mostly high carb foods from my diet so it just made sense to me that this was the way to go. In just three months of paying close attention to the carbs in his diet, my husband’s triglycerides had dropped dramatically and his A1C was back in the normal range. And that three months was during the food holiday season where I knew he had been eating some things he really shouldn’t have! For me, the change was that I wasn’t starving all the time. I have gained some weight back, but that is because I have struggled with the mental changes that have to come about to eat this way. Like you mentioned above, cheese and nuts seem to be a stumbling block for both of us. We are in our sixties and have had a lifetime of food brainwashing! When I mentioned to our physician that we were trying the ketogenic diet, his response was meh. Not even lukewarm. Just nothing, like diet had no bearing on diabetes. I have read enough to be totally convinced this is the way to go, so that will not deter us. We already have medical test results that show us we are on the right track.
My point...and I did have one, is to say thanks for bringing this down to KISS (keep it simple silly!)simplicity for us.
It’s ALL ABOUT THE CARBS! Just start by eliminating the carbs! I was trying too hard to keep all the macro balls in the air and it’s just not necessary! If it’s got too many carbs, don’t eat it!7 -
1Nana2many, I am glad it is working for you and your husband. Sometimes the damage done is hard to reverse. I am a bigot and a hard-line low-carb fundamentalist, but I am also not completely blind to the different struggles other people experience on their journey. It is great that his A1C is back in normal range and the low trigs are another great sign.
It can be really simple. I moderate a subreddit as well, and one of the biggest issues I have is with people trying to complicate what the way of eating is about. Yeah, some people might need to tweak things and pay attention to other stuff that most don't. But, the default advice should really be what works for the majority of people. We can trouble-shoot issues, if and when they arise.
---
To everyone else:
I know I mentioned watching the Bailor video. I am just going to include it here, for those who didn't click through. It's an hour. I know it's a long video. It is worth it. If
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ewexMZ1-o
@LowCarbHeart did a great job of summing it up for people in her response:Goat this is the best thread ever! It should be put at the very top of the Launch Pad! I've been trying to wrap my head around the calorie conundrum ever since joining MyFitnessPal. Up until this point I hadn't been paying attention to calories and still lost a significant amount of weight but I couldn't really articulate why. I just watched the video from start to finish and it was simply fantastic! Heading to the library tomorrow to check out The Calorie Myth to learn more.
Favorite Points Covered:- If you focus on the quality of what you eat, the quantity will take care of itself
- It is truly impossible to accurately track calories in and even harder to track calories out
- Changing the quality of what you eat will cause you to burn more calories than any exercise ever will
- Sugar is more addictive than cocaine
- Calorie counting only works for 4.6% of the population
- Exercise is also about quality not quantity
- Eating fat doesn't make you fat, it makes you full
- You burn more calories in the process of burning protein vs carbohydrates
- Become Fat Adapted vs Sugar Adapted
- Sometimes the pursuit of health can become unhealthy. If you just stick to eating non-starchy vegetables, nutrient dense protein, whole fat, and low fructose fruits, in that order, you will be fine.
The one thing I'm not totally sold on (and I know you're not either) is the idea of eating 10 - 12 servings of vegetables a day. I can't see myself eating that much food, but he does say if you've found a lifestyle that works for you, even if it is calorie counting, then by all means keep it up!1 -
I'm doing some research into the ketogenic diet for a thesis at the moment and came across some info which reiterates your original point FIT_Goat.
The original protocols of the diet (designed in the 1920s for epileptic children) were designed to be eucaloric (with no weight loss).
However, a side effect of lowering carbs to the point that a KD demands means that it is really difficult to sustain weight equilibrium and for most people, weight loss will ensue.
Interestingly, a eucaloric diet may still feel restrictive to some people - as the average American overeats, consuming 200 000 more calories per year than they did in the 1920s when the KD was established.
H.R. Cooder
Epilepsy in children: with particular reference to the ketogenic diet
California and Western Medicine, 39 (3) (1933), pp. 169-1733 -
Shadioutwo wrote: »I'm doing some research into the ketogenic diet for a thesis at the moment and came across some info which reiterates your original point FIT_Goat.
The original protocols of the diet (designed in the 1920s for epileptic children) were designed to be eucaloric (with no weight loss).
However, a side effect of lowering carbs to the point that a KD demands means that it is really difficult to sustain weight equilibrium and for most people, weight loss will ensue.
Interestingly, a eucaloric diet may still feel restrictive to some people - as the average American overeats, consuming 200 000 more calories per year than they did in the 1920s when the KD was established.
H.R. Cooder
Epilepsy in children: with particular reference to the ketogenic diet
California and Western Medicine, 39 (3) (1933), pp. 169-173
Here's a lede (lead) that should be broadcast from the rooftops.0 -
How could we be consuming 200,000 more calories a year without gaining like 57 pounds a year? Isn't the average like a pound a year? I know, as we get larger, our calorie needs increase. But, this is still a big difference. If you use the BMR calculators and some funky math and estimation, we can predict that 1 added pound will require about 3,000 extra calories a year. Of course, this isn't really a linear relationship. As more pounds of fat are added, new pounds require fewer calories annually. So, this would over-estimate the calories needs of our extra pounds.
A quick google didn't turn up weights for 1920s. https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43861419/PDF But, this document gives us an idea. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm gives us an idea of now.
1920s: 68" men ~ 163 lbs -- 63" women ~ 136 lbs
2010s: 69" men ~ 196 lbs -- 64" women ~ 169 lbs
Interestingly, both cases give us 33 pounds for both genders. There's a lot of assumptions built in here (assumed homogeneity of ages for example). 33 pounds extra is 100,000 extra calories a year. This still means we're supposed to be gaining 28 pounds a year with the extra calories. It should even be more considering the difference in activity level of the 1920s man and woman compared to today. But, we're gaining at only about a pound a year! What is going on with the magic calorie math we're supposed to believe in?
Now, is it reasonable to think we're consuming 200,000 extra calories a year? That's only about 500 extra calories a day. That makes intuitive sense to me. Of course, if we read about how calorie consumption numbers are calculated for populations, we begin to realize that these numbers are all huge guesses anyway. In many cases, it is based on food availability and not on how much was actually consumed. It is a good example number for how the "3500 calories = 1 pound on the scale" assumption breaks down in actual practice.
If people are interested, there is a great book about calories by Marion Nestle called "Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics" that will take you down the rabbit-hole. They end up being pro-calorie counting but also point out how frustrating and inaccurate it can be. If you have trouble finding this book, send me a PM and I might be able to send you in the right direction. I have a hard copy, somewhere. I think my sister stole it from me.3 -
<snip>
Now, is it reasonable to think we're consuming 200,000 extra calories a year? That's only about 500 extra calories a day. That makes intuitive sense to me. Of course, if we read about how calorie consumption numbers are calculated for populations, we begin to realize that these numbers are all huge guesses anyway. In many cases, it is based on food availability and not on how much was actually consumed. It is a good example number for how the "3500 calories = 1 pound on the scale" assumption breaks down in actual practice.
If people are interested, there is a great book about calories by Marion Nestle called "Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics" that will take you down the rabbit-hole. They end up being pro-calorie counting but also point out how frustrating and inaccurate it can be. If you have trouble finding this book, send me a PM and I might be able to send you in the right direction. I have a hard copy, somewhere. I think my sister stole it from me.
I'm definitely going to get that book, sounds great. I just found it on Scribd.
Anecdata: I am sure I was eating >500 extra calories a day at some stages in my life, probably even >1000 on some days! Not so hard to do when you think about large coffees with full cream milk and easy access to palatable, energy dense foods - I know my nonna in Italy wasn't having 400mL of milk with her 3 coffees every day, like I used to!
The original reference for the 200 000 extra calories per annum was: Kulak, D. & Polotsky, A.J "Should the ketogenic diet be considered for enhancing fertility?" Maturitas 74:1 (2013).
Short answer to their question: yes, yes it should.
Their reference was http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/prior-issues-(through-2003).aspx; November 2005 TOC [accessed 22.08.12] (which is now a broken link).
0 -
How could we be consuming 200,000 more calories a year without gaining like 57 pounds a year? Isn't the average like a pound a year? I know, as we get larger, our calorie needs increase. But, this is still a big difference. If you use the BMR calculators and some funky math and estimation, we can predict that 1 added pound will require about 3,000 extra calories a year. Of course, this isn't really a linear relationship. As more pounds of fat are added, new pounds require fewer calories annually. So, this would over-estimate the calories needs of our extra pounds.
A quick google didn't turn up weights for 1920s. https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43861419/PDF But, this document gives us an idea. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm gives us an idea of now.
1920s: 68" men ~ 163 lbs -- 63" women ~ 136 lbs
2010s: 69" men ~ 196 lbs -- 64" women ~ 169 lbs
Interestingly, both cases give us 33 pounds for both genders. There's a lot of assumptions built in here (assumed homogeneity of ages for example). 33 pounds extra is 100,000 extra calories a year. This still means we're supposed to be gaining 28 pounds a year with the extra calories. It should even be more considering the difference in activity level of the 1920s man and woman compared to today. But, we're gaining at only about a pound a year! What is going on with the magic calorie math we're supposed to believe in?
Now, is it reasonable to think we're consuming 200,000 extra calories a year? That's only about 500 extra calories a day. That makes intuitive sense to me. Of course, if we read about how calorie consumption numbers are calculated for populations, we begin to realize that these numbers are all huge guesses anyway. In many cases, it is based on food availability and not on how much was actually consumed. It is a good example number for how the "3500 calories = 1 pound on the scale" assumption breaks down in actual practice.
If people are interested, there is a great book about calories by Marion Nestle called "Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics" that will take you down the rabbit-hole. They end up being pro-calorie counting but also point out how frustrating and inaccurate it can be. If you have trouble finding this book, send me a PM and I might be able to send you in the right direction. I have a hard copy, somewhere. I think my sister stole it from me.
Perhaps it should be 20,000? If ludwig is correct, and it's 200ish a day....we'd be at 73,000.
PS: I adore Marion Nestle.0
