Disappointing Realization of Maintenance Calories
Replies
-
1- your stomach adjusts
2- eat out/drink less often
3- track macros/calories until you eat intuitively
4- be more lightly active (walking, standing); it adds up
I find maintenance super easy. It’s losing that’s damnation for me
Same here. But many people get geared up for the weight loss process but don't effectively plan for what maintenance will look like. So, they struggle and often regain.2 -
That is why I never count calories and restrict them severely.. your stuck because your metabolism is so slow and adjusted to the low calories. So you either diet all the time or regain even more.
I'd start eating more and moving more and adjust your system to allow for more food.1 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »As I said, I figured people would disagree with me.
I'm really not some oddball, advocating some unhealthy, woo idea demonizing carbs. Really, I'm not. It's simply biochemistry. Carbs drive up insulin, which effects blood sugar, and ultimately, fat storage. You don't need to take my word for it. (In fact, I would hope that you wouldn't.)
Many people feel and function much better on a higher protein, lower carb diet. That's a fact. I happen to be one of them. I am certainly not some kind of anomaly.
<snip all the words...>
I disagreed because you aren't understanding how carbs and insulin really work in healthy people. Re-read @mmapags post about it.
Then - the first paragraph in your post above sets up one thing and your second paragraph has nothing to do with that, so we discount the whole post. Stating your experience (like in the second paragraph) is a whole lot different than stating a fact that is being misrepresented in the first paragraph.
I know a lot of people do well on lower carb. No one is going to argue that point. However, high protein is not necessarily a good thing. What do you mean by, "higher protein?" Usually when people cut carbs they increase fats - and most people moderately increase protein percentages when in weight loss but, "higher protein?" Plenty of protein (and fiber and iron and other nutrients) in whole grains, too.
I think this forum has a lot of reasonable people who know their stuff and we will always advocate moderate plans with sufficient protein and fats and a variety of plants because it works, it's not restrictive or difficult to figure out and causes fewer long-term problems for the majority of humans.
Basically, eat the food you like in the portions that keep you at the weight you want. Ta da.
8 -
mmapgs---I have not "demonized" anything. Please don't put words in my mouth, nor cherry-pick my comments for single points out of context, and then put me in the situation of having to explain that's not what I said, nor what I meant.
Please read my entire comment and take into account the disclaimers I continue to make. "This is MY experience", "others may thrive on different diets", "I love bread and pasta", "healthy fats"... "see what works for you"...etc.
All I've said is that it's possible that EXCESS carbohydrates may be part of the problem for many people. I specifically state that I see no personal benefit in Keto that can't be had on a lower carb diet. I also said that I enjoy all those starchy foods---IN MODERATION. They are simply not the foundation of my diet. I use them like a condiment; sparingly.
I never said once said one "doesn't need fat", that we can live on only lean protein and veg. (Well, we CAN live easily on protein with natural accompanying fats, with some carbs, or no carbs, as many have found.) It is also a fact that we do not "need" grains nor starches to be absolutely healthy. But we absolutely DO need fat in our diets or we will die. It may well be the only macro-nutrient we actually must have for survival, but I haven't learned enough about that yet.
The fact is, the body does not respond to all calories equally. Carbohydrates spike insulin more than proteins or fats. Having excess insulin in the blood causes weight gain and Type II diabetes. This is not news anymore. It's why diabetics need to count carbs and use insulin. Yes, protein can ultimately drive up insulin as well, but the effects are blunted.
NO ONE is saying you "shouldn't" eat and enjoy your carbs if you are feeling great and achieving your goals. And even if you aren't, you are entitled to eat however you wish.
Some people thrive on this kind of diet. Others, like me, are made ill as a result.
I still eat and enjoy mine, but in much smaller amounts. I share my experience and knowledge here in case it might benefit anyone else. I found that being post-menopausal and almost 60, reducing the amount of starchy carbs I ate helped me lose weight more easily without ever feeling hungry, and a lot of the physical issues I was having, particularly with blood sugar fluctuations, went away. This isn't a made up story, with some kind of secret reason why it worked for me in particular.
It worked because there is science behind it. I'm not hungry because my blood glucose and insulin levels aren't peaking and troughing throughout the day. Fat is satiating, as is protein. It's all very common-sense.
I don't understand why this is contentious for some people. I'm not out there, trying to take your carbs away. If what you're doing is working for you, fantastic. If it's not, perhaps there is something else to try. What I'm doing it working great for me. There is a lot of science to support my personal experience, if you care to look. All I suggested that if people want to see if it helps, to give it a try. It's not Heroin or anything...
As I said though, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, nor to make anyone feel bad about their food choices! This is just information; information which is NEUTRAL.6 -
And, I never was "Insulin Resistant" as you are looking for a reason why this worked for me that is outside the norm.
I was never outside of the normal BMI range, with no metabolic issues. I've been medically healthy my whole life, with an interest in fitness, nutrition, and overall health over decades. I wanted to lose weight to feel better, and to fit into my skinny jeans again. I didn't want to be overweight and old, with bad knees as a result. I found that after a certain age, losing fat was a much greater challenge than it was in my 20s and 30s. So I learned more about why that could be, and did not accept that "this is what happens to you after menopause".
I see other women my age with the thickening middles and visceral fat deposits. That's what was happening to me as well. Now, for whatever reason, my waist is as it was in my 20s, and I am hardly starving myself. I credit my diet with a big part of that, because I feel so much better in every other way as well.
Yes, in some countries people live on grains and starches. In others they thrive on seal meat and salmon with not a vegetable or fruit in sight. Or milk, beef, and blood. If you're going to cite cultural differences, please make sure to include the ones which may not align with your point of view.
All calories are not created equal. We do not need grains to survive, nor thrive. They are cheaper than quality protein and fresh veg though, I'll give you that. My food bills are definitely higher eating this way, and that's a deterrent for many.
But it isn't because eating this way is somehow radical or unhealthy.
2 -
For the record, here are my "average" macros over the last few weeks, this is the range I try to stay in:
Carbs (total) 76-150g (predominantly fresh veggies with small amounts of fresh fruit, rice and potato.)
Protein 89-126g (fresh beef, chicken, fish, cooked at home.)
Fats 65-89g (Olive oil, coconut oil, real butter, fat on meats)
Average NET calories runs about 1600 or so. I'm 5' 7".
Does that really seem so extreme to you guys?1 -
Here is a link to various studies which might be of interest. 23 of them. Please read the conclusions about insulin sensitivity, cholesterol, triglycerides, etc. Because these are probably more important than pounds lost.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets#section13 -
ahhh its the grouping of articles that are always shared and when you actually dig into them - the data is loosy goosy at best
just in the first one alone - they didn't actually control calories - its not even mentioned how they established base requirements for caloric consumption in the subject group - they jumped immediately into divided into low carb (less than 30g a day) and low fat (less than 30% daily cals with a 500cal deficit) - no control group that just controlled for calories
if they really wnated to do a study to evaluate - they should have done it as an ABC type study - 3 subject groups with a set time at each type of diet (i.e. 4mths low carb, 4mth control and 4mths low fat) - but there should have been a period of aclimization between each as well as baselining before starting the study10 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I find it amazing that a post stating basically that it’s easier to maintain on a low calorie budget if you focus on nutritionally dense instead of calorie dense foods gets nothing but “disagree” here. C’mon, people. Can we get off the “all calories are equal when trying to lose weight” horse for long enough to admit that for MOST people, a big chunk of lean meat is more filling than a single bite of fatty hamburger? Can anyone here be honest enough for two seconds to admit that?
It’s not courting orthorexia to admit that a diet full of takeout and fast food probably isn’t the easiest way to stick to a 1200 calorie budget. 1200 calories goes fast. Those calories have to count, or it’s really not much food at all. When carefully curated, 1200 calories can equal three modest meals and a snack, and contain enough nutrition to keep someone healthy. Or it can be a single side of large fries plus a soft drink. I know which one is more likely to make me feel better, long term.
I’m not seeing anyone advocating banning fries completely. Long term, most people will stay sane eating the fries once in a blue moon. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But on an everyday basis, it’s easier to eat low calorie if you eat nutritionally dense foods.
Usually I find your posts very reasonable. But, honestly, I'm confused by this one. Where did anyone advocate for takeout or fast food or mention fries or fatty hamburgers?
Indeed, the reference to that -- eating one meal a day of pickle juice and lunch meat -- seemed like an enormous strawman to me. I've never seen something like that advocated (although I suppose it would be low carb).1 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »I do wonder what they're disagreeing with, exactly.
That carbohydrates affect blood sugar? That insulin drives fat storage? That cutting down foods which spike insulin might be a reasonable weight-loss strategy?
That you can be healthy while eating predominantly quality proteins and fresh veggies? That I had episodes of hypoglycemia on a high carb, low fat diet which resolved when I changed my diet?
These are all facts, not opinions.
I did not "disagree," but the claim that insulin leads to fat storage regardless of calories is false.
People aren't going to put on net fat in a deficit, it's perfect possible and easy to lose on a deficit with high carb as well as low (the issue is determining what makes you have an easier time sticking to a good calorie level, which for me and many has nothing to do with macros).
It's easier for your body to turn fat into body fat, which is why even on a moderate or higher carb diet that's normally what happens. It takes more cals to store carbs as fat and on a deficit you won't since glycogen stores aren't going to be full, typically.
It IS a good strategy to cut down on less nutrient dense foods, sure, but that's not the same as foods that "spike insulin" and most non diabetics need not know what foods spike insulin. High carb foods that many find satiating (although that is going to be personal) include fruit, potatoes, beans, lentils, oats, etc. Pasta can be part of a very nutritious and filling meal (I often make pasta with shrimp and lots of veg, for example).
Cutting back to lower nutrient. less filling foods for me wasn't carb focused -- I reduced servings of starchy sides (I'm not really a snacky or sugar focused person so crackers and cookies weren't something that played a major role, but I cut out all snacking), and I also cut back on added fat (including cheese).7 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »For the record, here are my "average" macros over the last few weeks, this is the range I try to stay in:
Carbs (total) 76-150g (predominantly fresh veggies with small amounts of fresh fruit, rice and potato.)
Protein 89-126g (fresh beef, chicken, fish, cooked at home.)
Fats 65-89g (Olive oil, coconut oil, real butter, fat on meats)
Average NET calories runs about 1600 or so. I'm 5' 7".
Does that really seem so extreme to you guys?
That's a reasonable moderate split.
I wouldn't call 150g of carbs on a 1600 plan "low carb" but I do understand your point that certain foods like grains and starchy vegetables don't help you and may be triggering to you and cause you to want to eat more. They tend to be higher calorie foods and are more likely to be restricted when on lower cals. I have that issue when I'm in weight loss mode and the first thing(s) to go are some grain products like cereal, rolls and crackers and I limit added sugar, but I'm not on a, "realization of maintenance calories," thread with dubious studies that really don't have anything whatsoever to do with this thread. It's more a personal diet plan preference.7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I find it amazing that a post stating basically that it’s easier to maintain on a low calorie budget if you focus on nutritionally dense instead of calorie dense foods gets nothing but “disagree” here. C’mon, people. Can we get off the “all calories are equal when trying to lose weight” horse for long enough to admit that for MOST people, a big chunk of lean meat is more filling than a single bite of fatty hamburger? Can anyone here be honest enough for two seconds to admit that?
It’s not courting orthorexia to admit that a diet full of takeout and fast food probably isn’t the easiest way to stick to a 1200 calorie budget. 1200 calories goes fast. Those calories have to count, or it’s really not much food at all. When carefully curated, 1200 calories can equal three modest meals and a snack, and contain enough nutrition to keep someone healthy. Or it can be a single side of large fries plus a soft drink. I know which one is more likely to make me feel better, long term.
I’m not seeing anyone advocating banning fries completely. Long term, most people will stay sane eating the fries once in a blue moon. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But on an everyday basis, it’s easier to eat low calorie if you eat nutritionally dense foods.
Usually I find your posts very reasonable. But, honestly, I'm confused by this one. Where did anyone advocate for takeout or fast food or mention fries or fatty hamburgers?
Indeed, the reference to that -- eating one meal a day of pickle juice and lunch meat -- seemed like an enormous strawman to me. I've never seen something like that advocated (although I suppose it would be low carb).
What I see is, currently, 6 disagrees on a perfectly reasonable post and not a single person (except @cmriverside who seems not to have read it and to be responding to things it doesn’t say) making a reasonable argument about why they disagree.
Carbs are easy to eat in excess and easy to cut. Over half of Americans are insulin resistant, not healthy. Advocating keto is unnecessary but this poster is making an argument more like “maybe don’t eat the whole bread basket at Olive Garden with every meal” which seems a pretty darned moderate argument to me, to attract six disagrees. I think people are hitting disagree by reflex because of the worship of “all calories are equal.” It becomes ridiculous.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »I find it amazing that a post stating basically that it’s easier to maintain on a low calorie budget if you focus on nutritionally dense instead of calorie dense foods gets nothing but “disagree” here. C’mon, people. Can we get off the “all calories are equal when trying to lose weight” horse for long enough to admit that for MOST people, a big chunk of lean meat is more filling than a single bite of fatty hamburger? Can anyone here be honest enough for two seconds to admit that?
It’s not courting orthorexia to admit that a diet full of takeout and fast food probably isn’t the easiest way to stick to a 1200 calorie budget. 1200 calories goes fast. Those calories have to count, or it’s really not much food at all. When carefully curated, 1200 calories can equal three modest meals and a snack, and contain enough nutrition to keep someone healthy. Or it can be a single side of large fries plus a soft drink. I know which one is more likely to make me feel better, long term.
I’m not seeing anyone advocating banning fries completely. Long term, most people will stay sane eating the fries once in a blue moon. It doesn’t have to be either/or. But on an everyday basis, it’s easier to eat low calorie if you eat nutritionally dense foods.
Usually I find your posts very reasonable. But, honestly, I'm confused by this one. Where did anyone advocate for takeout or fast food or mention fries or fatty hamburgers?
Indeed, the reference to that -- eating one meal a day of pickle juice and lunch meat -- seemed like an enormous strawman to me. I've never seen something like that advocated (although I suppose it would be low carb).
What I see is, currently, 6 disagrees on a perfectly reasonable post and not a single person (except @cmriverside who seems not to have read it and to be responding to things it doesn’t say) making a reasonable argument about why they disagree.
Carbs are easy to eat in excess and easy to cut. Over half of Americans are insulin resistant, not healthy. Advocating keto is unnecessary but this poster is making an argument more like “maybe don’t eat the whole bread basket at Olive Garden with every meal” which seems a pretty darned moderate argument to me, to attract six disagrees. I think people are hitting disagree by reflex because of the worship of “all calories are equal.” It becomes ridiculous.
I didn't disagree with it (again), but there are factually untrue things in it, and I think cmsriverside's posts are responding to those (as were some others).
I don't think carbs are easier to overeat in general than fat. The poster making the argument is not IR, we have no reason to think the OP is IR, and even you in the past have pointed out that some carbs affect you and others with T2D differently than others so IF one has that problem it is worth figuring out how you react to specific foods.
I don't think the poster is merely saying "eat more filling and nutrient dense foods for the most part" (which is reasonable advice most or all will agree with), but claiming that carbs, specifically, are somehow problem foods, and that insulin (regardless of IR status) means weight maintenance is difficult so carbs should be reduced. For me and many others SOME carbs can be quite satiating, and reducing calories was easy when we looked at out own personal sources of excess cals (which for me included added fats and for many will include foods that are both fat and carbs). I also found it easier to cut back on portions of starchy sides and tend to limit dessert foods, but the latter is because they aren't something I particularly care about, and the former is because for me rice and pasta and so on are foods I eat because they are there, so smaller servings doesn't result in me missing anything.
Suggesting that "carbs" and not calories cause weight gain/make weight loss harder in general is I think overly generalized advice false for many or most. Saying that if you struggle with portion control with certain foods cutting them back might help is a different thing, but those foods are going to differ person to person.8 -
the disclaimers I continue to make. "This is MY experience", "others may thrive on different diets", "I love bread and pasta", "healthy fats"... "see what works for you"...etc.
On the one hand you say this, which is perfectly reasonable and I have no issue with. Then you say this:The fact is, the body does not respond to all calories equally. Carbohydrates spike insulin more than proteins or fats. Having excess insulin in the blood causes weight gain and Type II diabetes. This is not news anymore. It's why diabetics need to count carbs and use insulin. Yes, protein can ultimately drive up insulin as well, but the effects are blunted.
Most of which is not true, particularly the bolded. Excess insulin does not cause weight gain or T2D. Being chronically overweight (for the majority of cases, there are exceptions with a genetic history) and underactive does. In insulin resistance leading to T2D, the body has lost it's sensitivity to insulin. So, the pancreas keeps overproducing it until it becomes a problem condition. Many T2D people can go into remission by losing weight, increasing vigorous exercise and intermittent fasting, which has the effect of raising insulin sensitivity in many people.
Bottom line:insulin doesn't cause weight gain. Excess calories do. I've said this repeatedly but you continue to ignore it and insist that insulin has some weight gain/ fat storage properties independent of excess calories. It doesn't. That is the main point of inaccuracy in your posts and the primary point of people disagreeing with you and counter your posts.
Here is an article by James Krieger, MS Nutrition and a published researcher and scientist that explains it and how the demonization of insulin is misguided.
https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
The rest of you post I have no issues with and I think is perfectly reasonable. The only point I would make is:This is just information; information which is NEUTRAL.While low-carbohydrate diets have been suggested to partially subvert these processes by increasing energy expenditure and promoting fat loss, our meta-analysis of 32 controlled feeding studies with isocaloric substitution of carbohydrate for fat found that both energy expenditure (26 kcal/d; P <.0001) and fat loss (16 g/d; P <.0001) were greater with lower fat diets.Figure 2A shows the daily energy expenditure differences between isocaloric diets with equal protein but differing in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat. The pooled weighted mean difference in energy expenditure was 26 kcal/d (P <.0001) greater with lower fat diets. Figure 2B shows differences in the rate of body fat change between diets with the pooled weighted mean difference of 16 g/d (P <.0001) greater body fat loss in favor of the lower fat diets. These results are in the opposite direction to the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model, but the effect sizes are so small as to be physiologically meaningless. In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat. (bold added by me for emphasis)8 -
Thank you, rheddmobile. For reading what I actually wrote and responding to that, instead of what inferring things I never even thought, much less wrote.
Somebody up there ^^^ responded to this statement: "Insulin leads to fat storage regardless of calories" which I never said. Restating what I said incorrectly and then arguing with that doesn't further the conversation at all.
And what has also been largely overlooked is my point about overall health, not just weight loss. When it comes to health, a calorie is more than just a calorie. Our body responds differently to fats/proteins/carbs. We all know you can lose weight eating nothing but lard and jelly beans, if you restrict calories enough. That's not what I'm getting at here.
For me, a diet based on carbs means that I have very few calories left over for the protein I seem to need, and the fats that keep me satiated and smooth out my blood glucose fluctuations. All those carbs make me bloated and affect my cognition and energy. So, I cut carbs in favor of QUALITY proteins, fresh produce, and full-fat dairy. I eat very little junk, although I like it as much as the next person. Why people think there is something "wrong" about this is confusing to me.
I keep saying that this is what helped me at my age. And "Your results may vary".
But what's amazing are the number of people jumping on me, making assumptions, who may well have never even tried this approach, that I'm aware of.
I say, "Don't knock it til you've tried it". If what you're doing is working great for you, "why fix it if it ain't broke?", as they say. But if you're struggling, particularly if you're a post-menopausal woman struggling to lose those last few pounds, who may need to address Type II diabetes or that afternoon slump, who is drinking diet sodas for the needed caffeine jolt, and feeling hungry because you haven't eaten in three hours, this might be worth a try.
1 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »And, I never was "Insulin Resistant" as you are looking for a reason why this worked for me that is outside the norm.
I was never outside of the normal BMI range, with no metabolic issues. I've been medically healthy my whole life, with an interest in fitness, nutrition, and overall health over decades. I wanted to lose weight to feel better, and to fit into my skinny jeans again. I didn't want to be overweight and old, with bad knees as a result. I found that after a certain age, losing fat was a much greater challenge than it was in my 20s and 30s. So I learned more about why that could be, and did not accept that "this is what happens to you after menopause".
I see other women my age with the thickening middles and visceral fat deposits. That's what was happening to me as well. Now, for whatever reason, my waist is as it was in my 20s, and I am hardly starving myself. I credit my diet with a big part of that, because I feel so much better in every other way as well.
Yes, in some countries people live on grains and starches. In others they thrive on seal meat and salmon with not a vegetable or fruit in sight. Or milk, beef, and blood. If you're going to cite cultural differences, please make sure to include the ones which may not align with your point of view.
All calories are not created equal. We do not need grains to survive, nor thrive. They are cheaper than quality protein and fresh veg though, I'll give you that. My food bills are definitely higher eating this way, and that's a deterrent for many.
But it isn't because eating this way is somehow radical or unhealthy.
Re: the bolded. I didn't know if you were insulin resistant or not but suggested it as a possibility for the hypoglycemic thing. Not looking for any reason why the diet you chose worked for you. It did. Good for you. That's all that matters. Quite honestly, your eating style, as you detail below, is very similar to mine. It works for me and I am satiated and healthy on it.
Re: the 2nd bolded. I think you missed the point. If your theory of insulin were true, why would people in The Blue Zones enjoy great health and longevity than people in other locations? That's not my point of view. That is the evidence. BTW, I don't eat a Blue Zone diet. That doesn't change the data.
And to briefly touch on the whole thing of essential nutrients, there are 2 that are needed for survival. Protein and fat. That is because there is no process b which our body can produce protein or fat without ingesting it. Thus they are essential. Carbs are not an essential nutrient. That is because we can convert fat to glucose via gluconeogenesis. Just because we have that survival mechanism doesn't mean that is optimal.
5 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »mmapgs---I have not "demonized" anything. Please don't put words in my mouth, nor cherry-pick my comments for single points out of context, and then put me in the situation of having to explain that's not what I said, nor what I meant.
Please read my entire comment and take into account the disclaimers I continue to make. "This is MY experience", "others may thrive on different diets", "I love bread and pasta", "healthy fats"... "see what works for you"...etc.
All I've said is that it's possible that EXCESS carbohydrates may be part of the problem for many people. I specifically state that I see no personal benefit in Keto that can't be had on a lower carb diet. I also said that I enjoy all those starchy foods---IN MODERATION. They are simply not the foundation of my diet. I use them like a condiment; sparingly.
I never said once said one "doesn't need fat", that we can live on only lean protein and veg. (Well, we CAN live easily on protein with natural accompanying fats, with some carbs, or no carbs, as many have found.) It is also a fact that we do not "need" grains nor starches to be absolutely healthy. But we absolutely DO need fat in our diets or we will die. It may well be the only macro-nutrient we actually must have for survival, but I haven't learned enough about that yet.
The fact is, the body does not respond to all calories equally. Carbohydrates spike insulin more than proteins or fats. Having excess insulin in the blood causes weight gain and Type II diabetes. This is not news anymore. It's why diabetics need to count carbs and use insulin. Yes, protein can ultimately drive up insulin as well, but the effects are blunted.
NO ONE is saying you "shouldn't" eat and enjoy your carbs if you are feeling great and achieving your goals. And even if you aren't, you are entitled to eat however you wish.
Some people thrive on this kind of diet. Others, like me, are made ill as a result.
I still eat and enjoy mine, but in much smaller amounts. I share my experience and knowledge here in case it might benefit anyone else. I found that being post-menopausal and almost 60, reducing the amount of starchy carbs I ate helped me lose weight more easily without ever feeling hungry, and a lot of the physical issues I was having, particularly with blood sugar fluctuations, went away. This isn't a made up story, with some kind of secret reason why it worked for me in particular.
It worked because there is science behind it. I'm not hungry because my blood glucose and insulin levels aren't peaking and troughing throughout the day. Fat is satiating, as is protein. It's all very common-sense.
I don't understand why this is contentious for some people. I'm not out there, trying to take your carbs away. If what you're doing is working for you, fantastic. If it's not, perhaps there is something else to try. What I'm doing it working great for me. There is a lot of science to support my personal experience, if you care to look. All I suggested that if people want to see if it helps, to give it a try. It's not Heroin or anything...
As I said though, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, nor to make anyone feel bad about their food choices! This is just information; information which is NEUTRAL.
I'm not arguing with your personal diet: It sounds really nutritious!
I'm not mostly arguing with your advice about choosing satiating foods and cutting out foods that aren't filling and add relatively less nutrition: That's good advice!
We are mostly arguing with your representations about how the human body works: It's simplistic, and not helpful, and in the final analysis not accurate. It's in line with a good bit of carb-scare publicity that's been current, and those sources have studies and footnotes, but they're cherry picked and incomplete. That's the source of the disagreement.
To the first bolded item: I think you might find protein (and in fact a particular complement of amino acids) to be pretty important for survival, in the long term.
To the second bolded: That's exactly the source of my disagreement (even though, as I said, I didn't click "disagree" . . . though I may start, pretty soon. ).
Congratulations, sincerely, on finding a way of eating that's healthy, nutritious, and works well for you personally. May we all do likewise! :flowerforyou:4 -
To be more specific about what I disagree with and why I don't read the post as solely saying "cut out what's easiest for you to cut out, focus on satiety, and eat a nutrient dense diet" (all of which I would agree with and think most would):ThinnerLiz wrote: »I believe whatever benefits there may be for a Ketogenic diet may be had with a lower carb diet. The biggest boon for me was satiety. I was/am rarely hungry because I don’t require a steady supply of carbs every few hours. This allows me to wait until I have good options to eat and a I’m not at the mercy of whatever is available.
As a personal anecdote I think the above is fine. To the extent it is intended to suggest benefits TO ALL from lower carb I think that's false (I tend to eat somewhat lower carb when losing and moderate carb -- 150ish -- on maintenance, and my maintenance as a woman at 5'3 is around 2000, but I don't think that's what all will feel best at, and I find I feel just as good when I do eat higher carb for a time, as I do when I cut back on animal products and rely more on beans/lentils for protein).
I also think that it's not that hard to "not require a steady supply of carbs every few hours" however many carbs one eats. Maybe the poster did not mean to suggest it, but there seems to be a view in the low carb world that if one eats non low carb it's impossible not to be eating constantly, and that's not true.Personally, I would never be interested in things like OneMealADay made of low-quality lunch meats and pickle juice, as I’ve seen some do.
Like I said, this seems like a strawman to me, and also would seem to be a low carb diet, so a weird attack on the non low carb folks (and I read it as suggesting that if one is not low carb one doesn't care about nutrition). Maybe I was incorrect in that.Not for me. I like real, nutritious foods. Not going to waste precious calories on Easy-Mac and hot dogs unless I’m having a junk food treat, which I do on occasion.
Again, this seems to be associating non low carb eating with not caring about nutrition.
***I feel great eating this way, and my skin is glowing. No carb comas nor crashes, and my body composition is changing on its own without the bloat that too many processed carbs can bring.
Again, associating carbs with bad health, when many carbs are nutrient dense (and aren't particularly more processed than processed fats or processed proteins or -- of course -- the mixed fat and carb foods that get so often wrongly characterized as "carbs" in our carb demonizing world.Carbs are not the enemy. But too many refined starches are just like sugar to the body. They drive up insulin, which causes the body to store fat. Exactly the opposite of what we want.
Fat storage is caused by excess cals, regardless of the macro, and as I noted before the body preferentially will store FAT as fat when available. So if you eat a typical SAD overly high cal diet you will be turning the fat you eat into fat, not the carbs. That doesn't mean FAT is the problem -- it's the excess cals and likely the lack of a sufficiently sating diet -- but it is biologically how it works. You don't gain fat from carbs in a deficit or at maintenance cals.There is solid science behind it, and as a skeptic, I’m living proof. The idea that we need 6+ servings a day of grains is counterproductive, from a metabolic, weight-loss point of view. 200+ grams of carbs per day just keeps the insulin flowing.
I also don't think we NEED 6+ servings of grains (and I think that's largely old advice and that people misunderstand what a serving is anyway), but to the extent this is supposed to mean that one can't lose or maintain on 200 g of carbs, again it is not true. (I don't eat 6+ servings of grains because I don't like most grains that much and would be wasting my cals. But it's also why the idea that grains would uniquely cause me to overeat is false. I'm simply not going to overeat grains if I am at all mindful. They aren't some evil weight-gain causing food. And whole grains can be sating and nutrient dense for many and in many cases they can be part of a sating and nutrient dense meal -- like the pasta with shrimp and lots of veg I mentioned before.)The only way to know if this works for you is to try it! Try a few days, or a month, with only fresh veg for carbs and see how you feel.
Why tell people to eat a different diet when they are happy with how they are eating? And only veg for carbs cuts out fruit and beans/lentils and thus foods that I personally think are quite nutritious.
Is there anything wrong with trying it for a while? No, I did myself (and found I had to eat FEWER veg than normal to do keto, which for me is bad, as was eating more meat than I normally do, and fat beyond my desire), but it was an interesting experiment. What I object to is the claim that cutting out all carbs but veg = a healthier way of eating, that's untrue and not a sensible approach to nutrition.Unless you’re a serious athlete just burning up those carbs like crazy, they may just be making your weight loss a lot harder than it needs to be, and we want everyone here to succeed.
Again, carbs don't cause weight gain/prohibit weight loss. This again sounds like she's saying it is carbs, not cals.
And if the concern is that they aren't sating, satiety is personal. For me (and many others) a variety of higher carb foods (I'd mention beans and lentils and fruit and potatoes) are sating, or are when included in a meal of mixed macros (and ideally lots of veg!).4 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »For the record, here are my "average" macros over the last few weeks, this is the range I try to stay in:
Carbs (total) 76-150g (predominantly fresh veggies with small amounts of fresh fruit, rice and potato.)
Protein 89-126g (fresh beef, chicken, fish, cooked at home.)
Fats 65-89g (Olive oil, coconut oil, real butter, fat on meats)
Average NET calories runs about 1600 or so. I'm 5' 7".
Does that really seem so extreme to you guys?
As I said above, your eating style and mine are very similar. My calories and protein are a little higher. No one has said your eating style is extreme. You have been challenged on your incorrect posting of information regarding the role of insulin in fat storage.
There are lots of people with lots of other eating styles too. They work for them just fine, including people that eat higher carb than you or me. In The Blue Zones, a couple of the common characteristics were high activity levels and maintaining healthy body weight. They thrive with longevity and health more so than other areas of the world. And, should you take the time to research it, you will see that The Blue Zones are spread throughout the world and are not location and culture specific. Blue Zones are located in different places, different countries and different continents.6 -
And thank you, cmriverside, for taking the time to thoughtfully read and respond.
For the record, the 150 grams of carbs would be a high day for me. Some days I might even go up to 220, but that's very rare, and only if it's some kind of special occasion or I've been doing a ton of exercise/feel depleted. I feel best and most energetic around 70-100 gram, most days.0 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »
And what has also been largely overlooked is my point about overall health, not just weight loss. When it comes to health, a calorie is more than just a calorie. Our body responds differently to fats/proteins/carbs.
Actually, no...no it's not. Most of us, specifically the ones you're talking with, know there's a difference between just losing weight and nutrition. EVERYONE is an advocate for a well balanced diet that can allow for moderate treats. So often on here it's preached that carbs, meat, dairy, insert daily devil here is what's keeping you from losing weight. No, no it's not.
Calorie control (however you do it) for weight loss.
Nutritious Diet for health
I have never seen anything but that said in response, but somehow it turns into (insert unrealistic diet here________) which is usually turns into the strawman of all fast food, candy or twinkies.We all know you can lose weight eating nothing but lard and jelly beans, if you restrict calories enough. That's not what I'm getting at here.
Nobody is.
8 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »And thank you, cmriverside, for taking the time to thoughtfully read and respond.
For the record, the 150 grams of carbs would be a high day for me. Some days I might even go up to 220, but that's very rare, and only if it's some kind of special occasion or I've been doing a ton of exercise/feel depleted. I feel best and most energetic around 70-100 gram, most days.
To be fair, Liz, we've had this discussion a time or 10,000.
Most of us in this part of the discussion have spent quite a bit of time refining our arguments in posting to be moderate and non-extreme and to account for the craziness that is in the media and on YouTube. We've had this Insulin Is The Problem discussion many many many many many times. We are just challenging you to tone down the exaggeration...because that's all it is.
People do not need to eliminate foods. Not even me, Ms 65 YO woman at 5'7" 140 for the past 12 years. BUT I will say, when I started weight loss my eating was over-the-top carb heavy. It took me nearly a year to steer my ship into Enough Protein Harbor. Yes of course it's easier and I feel better, because that's the way I was supposed to be eating, nutritionally. My body was created that way, it wasn't created to eat the pizza, cheeseburger, and ice cream diet of the 21st Century. Until I started getting the right nutrition I was always left feeling unsatisfied because I needed certain nutrition that I cannot and did not get in sugar free jello, cool whip, crackers and cheese with beer as a meal plan.
No one is arguing with sensible nutrition. Just your insulin and carbs and your NEUTRAL FACTS that aren't facts thing.
6 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Indeed, the reference to that -- eating one meal a day of pickle juice and lunch meat -- seemed like an enormous strawman to me. I've never seen something like that advocated (although I suppose it would be low carb).
This sort of eating is often touted in Keto groups. Some go zero carb, some only eat meat. According to them, they feel great and are healthy. Okay. I'm not going to argue with them, because I'm not in their shoes.
I tried Keto and often cycle in and out (not intentionally, but since I eat dinner rather early and often don't have my first meal until mid-morning, I'm in Ketosis during that time, particularly if I exercise.)
I felt great, no cravings, no hunger. Great energy.
BUT--I had issues with electrolytes. In the Keto groups, they will tell you that you need a lot of sodium to balance the fact that your body is dropping water like crazy, and your kidneys are working hard. (I learned the hard way to stay close to a bathroom in the early phases because I had to pee a lot, like EVERY HOUR.)
I mistakenly believed that after I got acclimated to this, my need for drinking salt water (literally) would diminish. "Not so", I was told. In order to not get a blinding headache and risk an electrolyte imbalance, I would need to keep my sodium at least 3,500 mg per day. Forever.
Enter the "SHOT OF PICKLE JUICE WITH DIET PEPSI" with plate of lunch meat and hard-boiled eggs. I was told to keep my net carbs below 20--or "Bad Things Would Happen".
When I asked why, if I was eating about 50 net carbs, and feeling great, losing weight, and all was well, I would want to cut that to 20? (You would think I'd asked why they don't eat their own young! ) Well, then I'd be "Kicked Out of Ketosis!!!!!!". And... then? Couldn't I... just get back in later? (The answer is: YES.)
I asked questions like "Are you saying you need to be in Ketosis to burn off your own bodyfat?" and "Is it possible that some people can reap the benefits of a low carb diet without being in Ketosis?" Crickets. After some nasty comments, of course.
When something makes very little sense when examined from all angles, I ditch it. Staying in Ketosis made no sense for me. Eating lower carb does.
My point here is that even those Keto folks with their pickle juice and hot dogs are wedded to their Way Of Eating, and good for them. I can't see that as healthy, no matter how hard I try. I only suggest that people open their minds to trying different methods, and learn that it's not the same for everyone, in terms of what type of eating works best for them. It's not about "Being Right" or winning people over to my way of thinking. I'm just passing on information.0 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »And thank you, cmriverside, for taking the time to thoughtfully read and respond.
For the record, the 150 grams of carbs would be a high day for me. Some days I might even go up to 220, but that's very rare, and only if it's some kind of special occasion or I've been doing a ton of exercise/feel depleted. I feel best and most energetic around 70-100 gram, most days.
Great! You've done what many people should do. You've experimented and found what is optimum for you.1 -
For the record, I never said that "carbs were bad", or "insulin" is bad, or "carbs make you fat". That was all inferred.
What I said was: For some people, a diet lower in carbohydrate might be beneficial (health and weight loss) because of how their bodies react to large amounts of carbs.
0 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »For the record, I never said that "carbs were bad", or "insulin" is bad, or "carbs make you fat". That was all inferred.
What I said was: For some people, a diet lower in carbohydrate might be beneficial (health and weight loss) because of how their bodies react to large amounts of carbs.
I think you need to go back and reread your posts. You stated multiple times that insulin causes fat storage and once your stated to caused obesity and T2D. Based on the posts, I'm not the only one who interpreted your posts this way.5 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »For the record, I never said that "carbs were bad", or "insulin" is bad, or "carbs make you fat". That was all inferred.
What I said was: For some people, a diet lower in carbohydrate might be beneficial (health and weight loss) because of how their bodies react to large amounts of carbs.
I think you need to go back and reread your posts. You stated multiple times that insulin causes fat storage and once your stated to caused obesity and T2D. Based on the posts, I'm not the only one who interpreted your posts this way.
It's how I read this statement (from an earlier post in this thread by the user): "Carbs drive up insulin, which effects blood sugar, and ultimately, fat storage."
It sounds like a statement that carbohydrates cause fat storage.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ThinnerLiz wrote: »For the record, I never said that "carbs were bad", or "insulin" is bad, or "carbs make you fat". That was all inferred.
What I said was: For some people, a diet lower in carbohydrate might be beneficial (health and weight loss) because of how their bodies react to large amounts of carbs.
I think you need to go back and reread your posts. You stated multiple times that insulin causes fat storage and once your stated to caused obesity and T2D. Based on the posts, I'm not the only one who interpreted your posts this way.
It's how I read this statement (from an earlier post in this thread by the user): "Carbs drive up insulin, which effects blood sugar, and ultimately, fat storage."
It sounds like a statement that carbohydrates cause fat storage.
That was my take as well, and similarly the statement about 200 g of carbs being bad because it keeps the insulin flowing.
I wouldn't have bothered going through it in detail except that another poster claimed that the disagrees (none of which came from me) must be disagreements with advice to eat a more nutrient dense diet. I don't personally think that eating 200 g of carbs must mean a less nutrient dense diet than one with 70 g of carbs. High and lower carb diets can both be extremely nutrient dense and not nutrient dense at all. For me, cutting back BOTH fat and carbs were part of my "focus on more satiating and nutrient dense foods and cut cals without feeling like you are sacrificing anything" strategy.
With the clarifications I do think people are largely in agreement, and of course I know that for some eating fewer carbs can be helpful for satiety reasons.
Maybe I'm weird, but I don't think my carb percentage when gaining was particularly high. I do think I ate less protein and more carbs and fat than I did when losing, and that I was less active than I should have been.5 -
Yet, it's not a statement that I made, that "carbohydrates cause fat storage".
Carbs do cause greater rises in blood glucose, which trigger more insulin to be released. That can inhibit fat metabolism. Fat and protein have a negligible effect on circulating blood glucose although they can also lead to a rise in insulin. How much of that is a problem (or not) would depend on the individual, and the circumstances. Are they in a caloric deficit? Are they running a marathon? Are they glycogen-depleted? In Ketosis? At risk for metabolic disease?
For those who are pre-diabetic or have Type II diabetes this would most certainly be an issue. Obviously, we need insulin, as it plays an important role in metabolism. It's hardly the enemy, and neither are carbs.
Insulin itself doesn't seem to be the issue as much as higher circulating blood glucose can be. But it's more complicated than that, I agree. I apologize if I sounded like I was over-simplifying things.
People who are perfectly healthy and feeling well can get by on all kinds of diets. As I've said from the beginning.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »ThinnerLiz wrote: »For the record, I never said that "carbs were bad", or "insulin" is bad, or "carbs make you fat". That was all inferred.
What I said was: For some people, a diet lower in carbohydrate might be beneficial (health and weight loss) because of how their bodies react to large amounts of carbs.
I think you need to go back and reread your posts. You stated multiple times that insulin causes fat storage and once your stated to caused obesity and T2D. Based on the posts, I'm not the only one who interpreted your posts this way.
It's how I read this statement (from an earlier post in this thread by the user): "Carbs drive up insulin, which effects blood sugar, and ultimately, fat storage."
It sounds like a statement that carbohydrates cause fat storage.
That was my take as well, and similarly the statement about 200 g of carbs being bad because it keeps the insulin flowing.
I wouldn't have bothered going through it in detail except that another poster claimed that the disagrees (none of which came from me) must be disagreements with advice to eat a more nutrient dense diet. I don't personally think that eating 200 g of carbs must mean a less nutrient dense diet than one with 70 g of carbs. High and lower carb diets can both be extremely nutrient dense and not nutrient dense at all. For me, cutting back BOTH fat and carbs were part of my "focus on more satiating and nutrient dense foods and cut cals without feeling like you are sacrificing anything" strategy.
With the clarifications I do think people are largely in agreement, and of course I know that for some eating fewer carbs can be helpful for satiety reasons.
Maybe I'm weird, but I don't think my carb percentage when gaining was particularly high. I do think I ate less protein and more carbs and fat than I did when losing, and that I was less active than I should have been.
When I look at periods where I've gained weight, I think it's always because my fat intake has crept up. It's not carbohydrates. This is probably because the carbohydrates I eat are pretty nutrient dense and I personally find them very filling. They're also pretty visible on the plate, where the fat I eat is more "invisible" (it's harder to notice an extra tablespoon of oil spread out across a whole dish and I'm not someone who is really satiated by extra fat in a meal).
It comes back to the bottom line that looking at what you're eating and making adjustments from there is usually going to be way more helpful than making changes based on abstract concepts. If I was planning my meals around the idea that carbohydrates aren't nutrient-dense and they cause fat storage, I'd be failing. And I'd be hungry!
You can plan wonderfully nutritious and delicious low carbohydrate diets. You can also have some pretty bleak and non-nutrient rich ones. Same for higher carbohydrate ways of eating.
What I don't see in this thread is anyone arguing that we shouldn't eat a nutrient-dense diet or that there is anything extreme about finding the way to do so that works best for your lifestyle and food preferences.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions