Disappointing Realization of Maintenance Calories
Replies
-
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 -
Jane, I liked your comment, and agree, 100%. It's not the foods themselves, it's how they affect us. And we're all different.
If we only have a certain amount of calories we can consume to lose/maintain, it makes sense that most of those should come from healthy, nutrient-dense sources, most of the time. What those macro nutrients end up looking like will vary between individuals, and that's a good thing.0 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »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/
I really don't enjoy this, but:ThinnerLiz wrote: »I know many of you may disagree with me, but I have to agree with Emily Enough, above, generally speaking.
As an almost 60-year-old woman, it was hard to lose the weight that had slowly crept in over a few decades.
The one thing that made the biggest difference was pretty much giving up alcohol in the weight loss phase (now I enjoy a bit in maintenance).
The other was cutting waaaaaaaay down on grains/starches and eliminating any obvious sugar. So, bread, pasta, corn, potatoes....were had in very small portions—-maybe 1/4 cup serving—and instead I focused on non-starchy veg, protein, and healthy fats. (Olive oil, real butter, full-fat dairy, in measured amounts.)
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.
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. 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.
But a nice piece of wild salmon, or grass fed beef, with fresh veggies, and a bit of rice, topped off with a few teaspoons of olive oil? There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a perfectly healthy meal. Even if the fancy varieties are unaffordable, it’s still better than skrimping on pizza.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
so....
6 -
nm, would take explanation, not up for it...2
-
I stand by what I said.0
-
ThinnerLiz wrote: »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/
Honestly it's mostly that this conversation has been had over and over, as cmsriverside noted, and many of the things you said sounded like those said by people arguing that it's carbs, not calories. Thus, I thought the suggestion that people disagreed with common sense advice to eat mostly nutrient dense foods was wrong and wanted to highlight the specific things I thought people were likely disagreeing with.
When you say above that carbs inhibit fat metabolism, it certainly SEEMS still like you are saying that eating too many carbs (which you had previously suggested 200 g were) will prevent fat loss, and that's not true. If they are in a calorie deficit, they will lose weight (and not gain fat).
I also don't believe that eating 50% carbs or even somewhat higher in the context of a nutrient dense diet with plenty of healthy fats and protein will lead to metabolic disease. The latter is much more likely to be a result of excess weight, as well as genetics, of course. Some who have developed metabolic disease may find eating fewer carbs (not necessarily low carb) will make their condition easier to control, of course.
Insulin also plays a positive role in gaining muscle.
I don't think we are really in any substantial disagreement, but carbs do get really demonized from time to time using pretty similar arguments as those you were using, and thus I think it's important to clarify that carbs alone aren't going to cause weight gain or preclude weight loss, and that higher carb diets can still be nutrient dense and overall healthy for people.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Yes, agree. I think my excess cals tend to be more from fat too, although I think the bigger issue is a lack of mindfulness. When I thought through where my excess cals were coming from a lot of it was portion creep and using too heavy a hand with oil in cooking. Realizing that (and that I often did some mindless eating when at work late) made losing it much easier than it otherwise might have been, as I was able cut back on those things without it feeling like I was really eating less, and being more mindful made me make sure the cals I did eat were ones I really enjoyed.
I also was able to take stock of my activity levels and I realized that although I still walked a decent amount (big city, I walk all the time), I wasn't nearly as active as I'd once been and so my TDEE was lower than I'd realized. Getting that up was as important as anything for me.1 -
Thank you, lemurcat, for your measured response. I try to be very clear in what I mean, and it can be frustrating when people make incorrect inferences. Cutting out important qualifiers like "may/might/could" means my words take on an entirely different meaning.
When I said that "Carbs are not the enemy", and "different people benefit from different diets", that's exactly what I meant.
I never said that carbs are solely responsible for weight gain, nor did I say that they are lacking in nutrients. I like my carbs just as much as the next person.
There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein. I wouldn't imagine most here believe that, because there is a lot of information out there, and on this forum, that deals with how the body responds to food on a metabolic level and not all calories are created equal in terms of how they affect and nourish our bodies.
But enough. I understand that people can be very sensitive to these issues and if a bunch of Low-Carb Keto Fans have been tromping all over with the "Carbs Will Kill Ya" mindset, I can see why people might react negatively to anything with a whiff of that.
But it's never been my intent to either push a way of eating on anyone, nor make light of anyone else's food choices. (Okay. Except for the Hot Dogs and Pickle Juice. I admit it, I think that's bizarre! ) I merely agreed with the suggestion that it might be worth experimenting with lower carbs if people are kind of stuck and looking for something different to try.
To be honest, I was skeptical when I first tried The Zone Diet back in the 90s. I was sort of shocked to find I felt a lot better. I should have stuck with it, or something like it, because I got back in the same ruts and started to feel crappy again. (Wash, rinse, and repeat.) That led me here, eating the way I do now.
I feel great, and I wanted to share that, in case anyone else might benefit from it. That's all.
3 -
There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?4 -
cmriverside wrote: »There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Exactly. The fallacy in this kind of statement is it equates calories for weight loss with nutrition. For weight loss, calories are what matter. For health and satiety, nutrient dense foods are what matter. It's an apples/ oranges comparison.
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?
And (as you'd expect coming from me) it's pedantic, but a calorie really is just a calorie.
I get that people say otherwise, and are treating it as a figure of speech; but it's not literally true, and can confuse people who have limited nutritional knowledge.
Different foods have different nutritional values, and also different calorie values. But calories and nutrient levels are different measurements of the one substance.
A mile of highway is the same mile as a mile of rough streamside footpath. It's not "asphalt miles" and "uneven gravel miles".
/Pedant7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions