I took a break from LCHF. It seems a lot has chaged. Advice would be appreciated.
AshStout83
Posts: 190 Member
I lost almost 60 lbs on LCHF. I stupidly took a break and regained around 35 of it. My first time around, the instructions by long-time LCHF members on this site were very different than they are now.
The old instructions were to eat more fat and to not worry if we’re not hungry. We were told not to force ourselves to eat.
Now that I’m back, I’m not only LCHF, I’m also a vegetarian. I’ve been reading answers to posts and I am now seeing instructions that we need to make sure we’re eating enough protein and that we don’t need to add a lot of fat if we have body fat to lose.
I am going to have to force myself to eat when I’m not hungry to get enough protein. Is that really what we’re supposed to do now?
Thanks in advance.
The old instructions were to eat more fat and to not worry if we’re not hungry. We were told not to force ourselves to eat.
Now that I’m back, I’m not only LCHF, I’m also a vegetarian. I’ve been reading answers to posts and I am now seeing instructions that we need to make sure we’re eating enough protein and that we don’t need to add a lot of fat if we have body fat to lose.
I am going to have to force myself to eat when I’m not hungry to get enough protein. Is that really what we’re supposed to do now?
Thanks in advance.
1
Replies
-
I disagree with the don't need to eat fat if you have fat to lose. Only two fuel sources for Energy... Carbs and fats. The body burns body fat at a specific rate, that doesn't change if you eat more or less fat. If at a calorie deficit, fat consumed is Energy spent. Fat Calories consumed are used as fuel and have nothing to do with stored body fat being burned.
People eating high carb, moderate protein and low fat at a moderate deficit are still losing weight and burning stored body fat, just the carbs consumed are Energy and fuel source. Just not staying full as long, because fat is highest calorie per gram and the slowest metabolised = full faster and longer.
My diet has consisted of moderate calorie deficit of high fat, moderate protein and low carb for four months... Have lost around 70 lbs and lots of body fat.
The body does need enough calories to survive, no matter what the calorie source being consumed is. I just make my meals high calorie meals by adding extra olive oil, butter, fatty cheeses, or creams.
Good luck.1 -
Emmapatterson1729 wrote: »I disagree with the don't need to eat fat if you have fat to lose. Only two fuel sources for Energy... Carbs and fats. The body burns body fat at a specific rate, that doesn't change if you eat more or less fat. If at a calorie deficit, fat consumed is Energy spent. Fat Calories consumed are used as fuel and have nothing to do with stored body fat being burned.
People eating high carb, moderate protein and low fat at a moderate deficit are still losing weight and burning stored body fat, just the carbs consumed are Energy and fuel source. Just not staying full as long, because fat is highest calorie per gram and the slowest metabolised = full faster and longer.
My diet has consisted of moderate calorie deficit of high fat, moderate protein and low carb for four months... Have lost around 70 lbs and lots of body fat.
The body does need enough calories to survive, no matter what the calorie source being consumed is. I just make my meals high calorie meals by adding extra olive oil, butter, fatty cheeses, or creams.
Good luck.
I think it largely depends on the kind of person you are. Like I mentioned briefly in another thread, there are 2 types of people: those who get great satiety from the WOE and those who don't.
The first type rarely have to count calories, because their appetite regulates so that they eat less naturally. They get full easily. But since they do, they sometimes don't get enough protein if they prioritize fat to be really high. And by enough protein, I don't mean HIGH, I mean enough to avoid catabolizing muscle excessively. We all lose some muscle along with the fat when we lose weight. To minimize that muscle loss, we recommend to keep protein up to at least enough. Having good muscle mass is linked to longevity and good health.
The 2nd type do not have a regulated appetite, because they don't get much satiety if any. So they have to watch and count calories along with macros to see weightloss success. I'm one of those. I never got the satiety and have always had a hearty appetite.
LCHF and keto are both more mainstream now, so in addition to the regular keto/LCHF gurus, everybody and their Aunt Trudy think they are the high priest of LCHF. And often their focus is FAT FAT ALL THE FAT. People like me and anubis and ccrdragon and SunnyBunny have been around awhile. So we've seen the evolution. Not everyone has to count calories, but calories do count, even if we aren't. So the 1st type are doing fine, except from crowding out their protein a little too much sometimes, especially if the satiety keeps your calories very low for longer than just a month. Hungry or not, human physiology requires protein for health and cell repair. For the 2nd, they hear ALL THE FAT, and are lead astray by those who don't enforce calories in their mantra. One of the ways the veterans have realized to drop the calories while feeling fuller is to swap some fat for protein. Protein is satiating, it is great for building decent muscle mass and fuels body repair. And it is less calories per gram than fat. Remember our bodies care about this even if we don't. And if you don't get the satiety from the WOE, you are still compelled to eat. If you follow this urge without restriction, you will not be successful. Protein also has micronutrients we need that fat does not.
Sometimes the 1st type shifts after adaptation, appetite returns, and they become the 2nd type; they don't know to count calories to help; they stall, fail, and quit. I see this over and over.
So the advice of protein is a need that has been recognized over time. And also a hack that can help those that would still try to not count calories.
A lot of the newer advice is hindsight. It's a shift to correct a lot of problems we've seen with some folk who feel bad due to lack of protein and fail because of that, or those who get sick from eating too much fat for them. It's a shift in the conversation to troubleshoot to make success on LCHF and keto a success for ALL and not just the 1st type. It's an effort to cut through all the false authority going around about the WOE to help people cut to the real, in the trenches, truth.
That's what I've seen evolve since I've been around here, and other low-carb groups/boards, since 2014. So my 87.5 cents.
Any other thoughts?7 -
AshStout83 wrote: »I lost almost 60 lbs on LCHF. I stupidly took a break and regained around 35 of it. My first time around, the instructions by long-time LCHF members on this site were very different than they are now.
The old instructions were to eat more fat and to not worry if we’re not hungry. We were told not to force ourselves to eat.
Now that I’m back, I’m not only LCHF, I’m also a vegetarian. I’ve been reading answers to posts and I am now seeing instructions that we need to make sure we’re eating enough protein and that we don’t need to add a lot of fat if we have body fat to lose.
I am going to have to force myself to eat when I’m not hungry to get enough protein. Is that really what we’re supposed to do now?
Thanks in advance.
How much protein are you trying to eat and deem "enough"? And why?1 -
Thank you both very much. Baconslave, the fat absolutely melted off of me my first time on LCHF. It was wild. I didn’t need to keep track of anything other than making sure my net carbs weren’t above 50. I may have had 50 grams of protein a day, nowhere near the protein levels I’ve been seeing recommended. I must have lost quite a bit of muscle my first time around and I don’t want that to happen this time.2
-
kpk54, thank you for your response. I may have eaten 50 grams of protein when I did LCHF the first time. At that time, the belief was that being in ketosis saved your muscles and you only lost fat. I did not try to eat any certain amount of protein.
I am now trying to eat 86 grams of protein, because I’ve read several recommendations that we eat much more protein than was once recommended. I got the number 86 from one of those LCHF calculators.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Emmapatterson1729 wrote: »I disagree with the don't need to eat fat if you have fat to lose. Only two fuel sources for Energy... Carbs and fats. The body burns body fat at a specific rate, that doesn't change if you eat more or less fat. If at a calorie deficit, fat consumed is Energy spent. Fat Calories consumed are used as fuel and have nothing to do with stored body fat being burned.
People eating high carb, moderate protein and low fat at a moderate deficit are still losing weight and burning stored body fat, just the carbs consumed are Energy and fuel source. Just not staying full as long, because fat is highest calorie per gram and the slowest metabolised = full faster and longer.
My diet has consisted of moderate calorie deficit of high fat, moderate protein and low carb for four months... Have lost around 70 lbs and lots of body fat.
The body does need enough calories to survive, no matter what the calorie source being consumed is. I just make my meals high calorie meals by adding extra olive oil, butter, fatty cheeses, or creams.
Good luck.
I think it largely depends on the kind of person you are. Like I mentioned briefly in another thread, there are 2 types of people: those who get great satiety from the WOE and those who don't.
The first type rarely have to count calories, because their appetite regulates so that they eat less naturally. They get full easily. But since they do, they sometimes don't get enough protein if they prioritize fat to be really high. And by enough protein, I don't mean HIGH, I mean enough to avoid catabolizing muscle excessively. We all lose some muscle along with the fat when we lose weight. To minimize that muscle loss, we recommend to keep protein up to at least enough. Having good muscle mass is linked to longevity and good health.
The 2nd type do not have a regulated appetite, because they don't get much satiety if any. So they have to watch and count calories along with macros to see weightloss success. I'm one of those. I never got the satiety and have always had a hearty appetite.
LCHF and keto are both more mainstream now, so in addition to the regular keto/LCHF gurus, everybody and their Aunt Trudy think they are the high priest of LCHF. And often their focus is FAT FAT ALL THE FAT. People like me and anubis and ccrdragon and SunnyBunny have been around awhile. So we've seen the evolution. Not everyone has to count calories, but calories do count, even if we aren't. So the 1st type are doing fine, except from crowding out their protein a little too much sometimes, especially if the satiety keeps your calories very low for longer than just a month. Hungry or not, human physiology requires protein for health and cell repair. For the 2nd, they hear ALL THE FAT, and are lead astray by those who don't enforce calories in their mantra. One of the ways the veterans have realized to drop the calories while feeling fuller is to swap some fat for protein. Protein is satiating, it is great for building decent muscle mass and fuels body repair. And it is less calories per gram than fat. Remember our bodies care about this even if we don't. And if you don't get the satiety from the WOE, you are still compelled to eat. If you follow this urge without restriction, you will not be successful. Protein also has micronutrients we need that fat does not.
Sometimes the 1st type shifts after adaptation, appetite returns, and they become the 2nd type; they don't know to count calories to help; they stall, fail, and quit. I see this over and over.
So the advice of protein is a need that has been recognized over time. And also a hack that can help those that would still try to not count calories.
A lot of the newer advice is hindsight. It's a shift to correct a lot of problems we've seen with some folk who feel bad due to lack of protein and fail because of that, or those who get sick from eating too much fat for them. It's a shift in the conversation to troubleshoot to make success on LCHF and keto a success for ALL and not just the 1st type. It's an effort to cut through all the false authority going around about the WOE to help people cut to the real, in the trenches, truth.
That's what I've seen evolve since I've been around here, and other low-carb groups/boards, since 2014. So my 87.5 cents.
Any other thoughts?
You could give your opinion without attacking mine or me personally!!...I didn't get nasty or mean. No need to attack.
All that protein must do wonders for personality... Try upping fats... It actually changes brain chemicals and releases endorphins. Might make you bossy protein gurus a little nicer in delivering your knowledge.
Just because you guys have lived on a diet forum for years doesn't make you experts in physiology! More makes you condescending want-a-be know-it-alls!0 -
These groups have turned into the general forums all over again.
Except instead of people getting ATTACKED for eating keto vs regular calorie deficit, it's people getting attacked eating high fat instead of high protein.
If keto has evolved, why are the medical research and studies still testing the medicinal effects of lchf?
Rhetorical question, don't bother answering, I'm out.
0 -
Emmapatterson1729 wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Emmapatterson1729 wrote: »I disagree with the don't need to eat fat if you have fat to lose. Only two fuel sources for Energy... Carbs and fats. The body burns body fat at a specific rate, that doesn't change if you eat more or less fat. If at a calorie deficit, fat consumed is Energy spent. Fat Calories consumed are used as fuel and have nothing to do with stored body fat being burned.
People eating high carb, moderate protein and low fat at a moderate deficit are still losing weight and burning stored body fat, just the carbs consumed are Energy and fuel source. Just not staying full as long, because fat is highest calorie per gram and the slowest metabolised = full faster and longer.
My diet has consisted of moderate calorie deficit of high fat, moderate protein and low carb for four months... Have lost around 70 lbs and lots of body fat.
The body does need enough calories to survive, no matter what the calorie source being consumed is. I just make my meals high calorie meals by adding extra olive oil, butter, fatty cheeses, or creams.
Good luck.
I think it largely depends on the kind of person you are. Like I mentioned briefly in another thread, there are 2 types of people: those who get great satiety from the WOE and those who don't.
The first type rarely have to count calories, because their appetite regulates so that they eat less naturally. They get full easily. But since they do, they sometimes don't get enough protein if they prioritize fat to be really high. And by enough protein, I don't mean HIGH, I mean enough to avoid catabolizing muscle excessively. We all lose some muscle along with the fat when we lose weight. To minimize that muscle loss, we recommend to keep protein up to at least enough. Having good muscle mass is linked to longevity and good health.
The 2nd type do not have a regulated appetite, because they don't get much satiety if any. So they have to watch and count calories along with macros to see weightloss success. I'm one of those. I never got the satiety and have always had a hearty appetite.
LCHF and keto are both more mainstream now, so in addition to the regular keto/LCHF gurus, everybody and their Aunt Trudy think they are the high priest of LCHF. And often their focus is FAT FAT ALL THE FAT. People like me and anubis and ccrdragon and SunnyBunny have been around awhile. So we've seen the evolution. Not everyone has to count calories, but calories do count, even if we aren't. So the 1st type are doing fine, except from crowding out their protein a little too much sometimes, especially if the satiety keeps your calories very low for longer than just a month. Hungry or not, human physiology requires protein for health and cell repair. For the 2nd, they hear ALL THE FAT, and are lead astray by those who don't enforce calories in their mantra. One of the ways the veterans have realized to drop the calories while feeling fuller is to swap some fat for protein. Protein is satiating, it is great for building decent muscle mass and fuels body repair. And it is less calories per gram than fat. Remember our bodies care about this even if we don't. And if you don't get the satiety from the WOE, you are still compelled to eat. If you follow this urge without restriction, you will not be successful. Protein also has micronutrients we need that fat does not.
Sometimes the 1st type shifts after adaptation, appetite returns, and they become the 2nd type; they don't know to count calories to help; they stall, fail, and quit. I see this over and over.
So the advice of protein is a need that has been recognized over time. And also a hack that can help those that would still try to not count calories.
A lot of the newer advice is hindsight. It's a shift to correct a lot of problems we've seen with some folk who feel bad due to lack of protein and fail because of that, or those who get sick from eating too much fat for them. It's a shift in the conversation to troubleshoot to make success on LCHF and keto a success for ALL and not just the 1st type. It's an effort to cut through all the false authority going around about the WOE to help people cut to the real, in the trenches, truth.
That's what I've seen evolve since I've been around here, and other low-carb groups/boards, since 2014. So my 87.5 cents.
Any other thoughts?
You could give your opinion without attacking mine or me personally!!...I didn't get nasty or mean. No need to attack.
All that protein must do wonders for personality... Try upping fats... It actually changes brain chemicals and releases endorphins. Might make you bossy protein gurus a little nicer in delivering your knowledge.
Just because you guys have lived on a diet forum for years doesn't make you experts in physiology! More makes you condescending want-a-be know-it-alls!
Where did I attack you personally?
I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying.
I was saying there are a million of keto gurus out there. We have all seen their YouTube videos. Some of them are okay, but some of them unintentionally lead people astray with all the fat talk. Fat isn't the whole story for some. Besides with a little higher protein, fat is still the highest macro.
I wasn't even talking about you just referencing the discussion.
I don't understand the vehemence I'm seeing here. If I'm missing something I do apologize.
I was just giving the possible perspective regarding the change in advice that the OP asked for.
8 -
I've tagged my fellow mods to look at this thread to see what I'm missing. Meanwhile, I'm closing it. They can reopen it if they have something to add. I had 3 soccer games tonight for the kids so I was just able to see this now.
Stay tuned.
3 -
I have looked through this, and I saw no personal attacks. Nor do I see any reason to prohibit someone from disagreeing with another person's opinion (as if that is the same as attacking it).
Disagreements happen here. Heck, I am one of the biggest "don't count calories" bigots on here. I have learned to not get offended when people don't agree with me.
Anyway, I am going to leave this locked. I don't see the point. Many people have come along to add their own take to LCHF. But, I do not believe it matters. Heck, the basis from my plan comes from books published in 1946, 1961, and research done in the 1920s based on even earlier ideas from the late 1800s. I see no reason to add to what has worked for over a hundred years.5
This discussion has been closed.