Reminder: Low Carb is not about starving yourself until you're skinny.
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Maybe if they factored in how many more calories it takes to maintain the extra weight it gets closer to 200000 kcal extra? I know for me, maintenance calories at 190 is different than maintenance forty pounds lighter.0
-
Maybe if they factored in how many more calories it takes to maintain the extra weight it gets closer to 200000 kcal extra? I know for me, maintenance calories at 190 is different than maintenance forty pounds lighter.
Yeah, I tried to account for that. It would take approximately 100,000 extra calories a year to maintain 33 extra pounds. I totally buy the 200,000 number, it makes sense. It just would be crazy if the 3500 calories math worked linearly like they say it should. We'd all be on "My 600 Pound Life."0 -
Yeah! No kidding.
0 -
I was trying to find my CICO/loss-rate graph. It might be lost to time. But, there is a really cool lack of relationship between the numbers at points. The lack of relationship certainly comes from the complete inability to actually know the CICO numbers in any accurate manner.2
-
Shadioutwo wrote: »
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.
You may be able to find the dried ones in an Asian food shop. They are called kuromame.
edited: found a link that shows the dried uncooked ones: https://www.ebay.com/itm/262688877023
I made some for my Japanese family for the new year's celebrations, following the traditional oshogatsu recipe--tons of sugar added--but you can use them like any beans. Just soak 12-24 hours before cooking.0 -
So many new people in the last week. I am bumping this.0
-
This makes sense to me. I have been here since May 2018. And fall into the Low carb camp. Working with a Dr. who laid out to me why this was the best food lifestyle to follow. She continues to reinforce something that you are hitting on. Her words to me have been if you stay within your Carb, protein parameters, as well as fat parameters. She really is not worried what my calories are. Because the weight will come off. Along with stating with the 50 carbs that it does not include white flour, white sugar and processed food. Which I have given up, and was surprised to find out for the most part I do not miss.
So from May 2018 to December 2018 as a type 2 Diabetic. Now my AC1 is 6.1, I started in double digits. Morning numbers in low 90's. Blood lipids are all great. And I know that a combo of Low carb and some exercise is the reason why. I could not be happier. As I continue on my quest to a healthy weight.8 -
maureenkhilde wrote: »This makes sense to me. I have been here since May 2018. And fall into the Low carb camp. Working with a Dr. who laid out to me why this was the best food lifestyle to follow. She continues to reinforce something that you are hitting on. Her words to me have been if you stay within your Carb, protein parameters, as well as fat parameters. She really is not worried what my calories are. Because the weight will come off. Along with stating with the 50 carbs that it does not include white flour, white sugar and processed food. Which I have given up, and was surprised to find out for the most part I do not miss.
So from May 2018 to December 2018 as a type 2 Diabetic. Now my AC1 is 6.1, I started in double digits. Morning numbers in low 90's. Blood lipids are all great. And I know that a combo of Low carb and some exercise is the reason why. I could not be happier. As I continue on my quest to a healthy weight.
Awesome! As a fellow diabetic, nothing feels better than having your blood sugar under control. Diabetes affects so many parts of our bodies. For me, depression rears its ugly head when my diabetes is not managed. And honestly, eating this way leans into how I really like to eat.
Congrats on getting on the road to well being!2 -
Here is an article that I ran across today: https://medium.com/bloomberg-view/the-case-against-counting-calories-aff71ee021ee
Warning: You'll need to create an account to read this, but it is free. I have included quotes below. All emphasis is mine.Over the last couple of years, scientific studies have cast doubt on the simple and elegant idea of calorie counting. No one’s disputing the physics of it: A calorie is nothing but a measurement of the energy stored in food, and indeed, if you eat too few calories, you will start burning up your own tissue. What’s being called into question is the conventional wisdom that to lose weight, people should readjust their ratio of calories eaten to calories burned.The admonition to eat less contradicts what seems heretical about the study — that people on the low-carb arm could eat all the fat they wanted, and the low-fat arm could eat unlimited carbs, as long as they ate no “crap.” It seems likely they could have also lost weight while eating unlimited amounts of healthy food of all kinds, thus countering the myth that we’re all wired to overeat and we must suffer and starve to be healthy.Overall, subjects lost weight while eating as many calories as they wanted.University of California San Francisco endocrinologist Robert Lustig agrees with Gardner that processed food is a problem — and that the food industry has played into the myth that people can eat a ton of junk as long as they correctly tally up the calories.
Calorie counting fails, in his view, because eating isn’t like putting gasoline in your car — where the amount of fuel is all that matters.
In short, it's about the quality and not the quantity when it comes to healthy weight loss.6 -
It makes sense that being malnourished will make your body trigger hunger because it needs nutrients...and it makes sense that eating non-nutritive foods would keep you malnourished no matter how much you ate, thus always hungry...and it makes sense that eating nutritious foods would fix that so your body did need to trigger your hunger and you would only eat what you really need.4
