Low Card Or Calorie Counting?!
leighs96
Posts: 14 Member
So I’ve been counting my calories for about three almost 4 weeks now and I haven’t really been dropping as much weight as I wanted or seeing the change that I want to so my mom is telling me to switch to a low-carb diet only eat about 25 carbs a day that I would drop weight faster what do you guys think please help me I’m stuck between the two
0
Replies
-
How much weight have you lost and how much do you have to lose?
Less than four weeks also isn't very long for someone to judge a trend.
Low carb is just one way to achieve a calorie deficit, there's no magic to it.
Part of the popularity of it is that people can get a big drop in water weight in the first couple of weeks. But remember you presumably want to lose fat and not water and fat loss is driven by a calorie deficit not by the types of food eaten.
*edited by a MFP moderator11 -
For weight loss only a calorie deficit counts. How you achieve it is up to you. That can be due to eating less carbs if carbs make you overeat. It can also be due to reducing everything a little bit. Low carb doesn't mean eating less calories than your body needs if you eat more of other food instead. Then you'd still gain.
Calorie counting is a way to make sure you're in a calorie deficit. There's no other way of knowing for sure. Ok, you can guess, but we tend to be rather bad at guessing, and if we knew how much to eat then nobody would be overweight.
Btw, weight loss is never fast. But can't say more about that without knowing the answers to the questions sijomial asked.2 -
This is a highly debated topic. I'll separate my response in two parts: low carb vs calorie counting and general questions about your possibly unrealistic expectations.
Low carb vs simple calorie restriction
One of the most recent studies that compared fat loss between a reduced fat and reduced carbohydrate diet actually demonstrated reduced fat diet (calories kept the same) induced a higher rate of fat loss:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603544/
This study indicates there isn't really a fat loss benefit to a low carbohydrate diet. Note: this study was not a VERY low carbohydrate diet (ketosis) but it at least shows there is no metabolic benefit to a low carb diet.
A VERY low carb diet (generally less than 50g of carbs) is needed to reach ketosis. If you have insulin resistance or metabolic syndrome a ketogenic diet may be beneficial. If you aren't in this category then you can probably be successful with either approach. In my opinion, calorie counting is simpler to sustain long term than a ketogenic diet. One attraction to a VERY low carb diet is very fast INITIAL results. This is misleading because it's just dropping a lot of water weight and not fat, which is the goal.
I know people that have been successful with both approaches and I know people that have failed with both approaches. The bottom line is you will need to have a caloric deficit to lose weight -- the law of thermodynamics is just that .. a law.
Expectations
You haven't given us any data on your 3 or 4 weeks results, so it's difficult to know if your problem is simply unrealistic expectations. A healthy rate of weight loss is usually between .5% and 1% per week. For most of us that's in the 1 - 2 lb range per week. How much weight do you need to lose ? What is your average calories consumption ? How much weight have you lost ?
2 -
How much weight have you lost and how much do you have to lose?
Less than four weeks also isn't very long for a young woman to judge a trend.
Low carb is just one way to achieve a calorie deficit, there's no magic to it.
Part of the popularity of it is that people can get a big drop in water weight in the first couple of weeks. But remember you presumably want to lose fat and not water and fat loss is driven by a calorie deficit not by the types of food eaten.
If you stopped eating carbs you would see the scale go down faster, but what you're seeing is a loss of water weight, not actual bodyfat. You can eat carbs and lose weight as long as you account for them. A pound per week is excellent progress - there is a multimillion (multibillion?) dollar industry that is DEEPLY invested in convincing women it should/could be happening faster (go to the grocery store and count how many magazines aimed at women purport to hold the secret to losing 20 lbs in 2 weeks or some such drivel), but that's not true. Not if you want to lose the weight safely and keep it off.
*edited by a MFP moderator3 -
How much weight have you lost and how much do you have to lose?
Less than four weeks also isn't very long for a young woman to judge a trend.
My start weight was 169, & as of monday i’m at 161 my goal is to get to 125.
also i just feel the counting calories isn’t working for me bc i eat about 1,300 a day & im having a hard time burning 650 calories a day. i workout (lightly) as i have just started for about 20 mins & walk for about 40 mins & always get my 10 k steps in. idk. i’m just struggling.1 -
How much weight have you lost and how much do you have to lose?
Less than four weeks also isn't very long for a young woman to judge a trend.
My start weight was 169, & as of monday i’m at 161 my goal is to get to 125.
also i just feel the counting calories isn’t working for me bc i eat about 1,300 a day & im having a hard time burning 650 calories a day. i workout (lightly) as i have just started for about 20 mins & walk for about 40 mins & always get my 10 k steps in. idk. i’m just struggling.
So you've lost 8lbs in less than 4 weeks? What exactly isn't working?5 -
How much weight have you lost and how much do you have to lose?
Less than four weeks also isn't very long for a young woman to judge a trend.
My start weight was 169, & as of monday i’m at 161 my goal is to get to 125.
also i just feel the counting calories isn’t working for me bc i eat about 1,300 a day & im having a hard time burning 650 calories a day. i workout (lightly) as i have just started for about 20 mins & walk for about 40 mins & always get my 10 k steps in. idk. i’m just struggling.
Why do you need to burn 650 calories a day? 1300 calories is low already without exercise! No need to starve yourself to lose weight.3 -
2lbs per week is a pretty high rate of loss, the only thing that is the issue is your expectations.
Why do you need to burn 650 calories per day? Your calorie deficit is already factored into your calorie goal. Also if you're going 10000 steps per day, have you set yourself as Active when choosing your activity level?4 -
"My start weight was 169, & as of monday i’m at 161 my goal is to get to 125.
also i just feel the counting calories isn’t working for me bc i eat about 1,300 a day & im having a hard time burning 650 calories a day. i workout (lightly) as i have just started for about 20 mins & walk for about 40 mins & always get my 10 k steps in. idk. i’m just struggling. "
Your expectations are at fault - 8lbs is a fast rate of weight loss.
Too fast if it continues at that rate.
7 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »2lbs per week is a pretty high rate of loss, the only thing that is the issue is your expectations.
Why do you need to burn 650 calories per day? Your calorie deficit is already factored into your calorie goal. Also if you're going 10000 steps per day, have you set yourself as Active when choosing your activity level?
+1 to this.
As I expected, you are doing fine -- in fact this rate of weight loss (2 lbs per week) is likely not sustainable long term and you should expect to slow down over time.
As I said before, .5% to 1% are the general guidelines for healthy, sustainable weight loss. You are actually above that rate right now. You will have a better chance of reaching your goal if you actually slow down your rate to 1 or 1.5 lbs per week and eat a little more.3 -
If you open your diary, we can probably help you more (or at least check and see if your logging looks accurate and that you are eating a healthy amount while remaining in a deficit)
I do hope you are eating back some exercise calories.
I am old(er) and short (5'1) and lose on 1500 calories consistently. Even maintenance for me at 120 pounds will be around 1400ish calories. You look to be much younger than me, and statistically, you are probably taller. Both factors contribute to how much you can eat while still being in a deficit and losing weight. the one who can eat the most and still lose... wins, at least in my book
LOL
a slower rate of loss where you can maintain that lifestyle to maintain the weight loss is better than a fast rate of loss that (could be possibly dangerous over time) but also that you may not be able to sustain long term, and gain some or all of the weight back. I maintained a 120ish pound weight loss for 2 or 3 years, then got lazy (stopped paying attention to how much I was eating, stopped working out, etc) and slowly gained back 50. Better than all of it, but still a PITA to lose again.
carbs are routinely half my macros. unless you are diabetic or have another health issue requiring a low carb diet, calories are king.2 -
Some people love Keto diets. I tried it for two days in January and was miserable. Maybe it would have got better with time and it was just sugar cravings getting to me. But I felt like it wouldn't be sustainable for me.
Happily I didn't do what I normally do: decide it's not worth it and just throw in the towel and binge. Instead I switched to a more basic moderate calorie restriction. And it's been sustainable for the last six weeks or so - not very long but longer than I usually manage when I try more extreme diets.
My understanding is that it doesn't much matter how you're getting your calories in terms of weight loss. 1000 calories or carbs has the same effect on weight loss or gain or maintenance as 1000 calories of fat or protein. The difference though is that different people find different foods more satisfying and filling. So it may be that eating fewer carbs and more protein would make you feel fuller for longer, and therefore allow you to have a sustainable calorie restricted diet, leading to weight loss.
For me - a diet that requires me to effectively cut out sugars, breads and potatoes entirely was just never going to work, no matter how many times I tried to tell myself it was OK because I could eat lots of bacon. So now I just limit those to fit them into my calorie allowance.0 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »If you open your diary, we can probably help you more (or at least check and see if your logging looks accurate and that you are eating a healthy amount while remaining in a deficit)
I do hope you are eating back some exercise calories.
I am old(er) and short (5'1) and lose on 1500 calories consistently. Even maintenance for me at 120 pounds will be around 1400ish calories. You look to be much younger than me, and statistically, you are probably taller. Both factors contribute to how much you can eat while still being in a deficit and losing weight. the one who can eat the most and still lose... wins, at least in my book LOL
a slower rate of loss where you can maintain that lifestyle to maintain the weight loss is better than a fast rate of loss that (could be possibly dangerous over time) but also that you may not be able to sustain long term, and gain some or all of the weight back. I maintained a 120ish pound weight loss for 2 or 3 years, then got lazy (stopped paying attention to how much I was eating, stopped working out, etc) and slowly gained back 50. Better than all of it, but still a PITA to lose again.
carbs are routinely half my macros. unless you are diabetic or have another health issue requiring a low carb diet, calories are king.
Hey, how do i open my diary for y’all??
I’m 5’2 and 24 if that’s helps any?
0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »2lbs per week is a pretty high rate of loss, the only thing that is the issue is your expectations.
Why do you need to burn 650 calories per day? Your calorie deficit is already factored into your calorie goal. Also if you're going 10000 steps per day, have you set yourself as Active when choosing your activity level?
i thought in order to lose weight you have to burn more calories than you’re eating? i saw that on tik tok
2 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »If you open your diary, we can probably help you more (or at least check and see if your logging looks accurate and that you are eating a healthy amount while remaining in a deficit)
I do hope you are eating back some exercise calories.
I am old(er) and short (5'1) and lose on 1500 calories consistently. Even maintenance for me at 120 pounds will be around 1400ish calories. You look to be much younger than me, and statistically, you are probably taller. Both factors contribute to how much you can eat while still being in a deficit and losing weight. the one who can eat the most and still lose... wins, at least in my book LOL
a slower rate of loss where you can maintain that lifestyle to maintain the weight loss is better than a fast rate of loss that (could be possibly dangerous over time) but also that you may not be able to sustain long term, and gain some or all of the weight back. I maintained a 120ish pound weight loss for 2 or 3 years, then got lazy (stopped paying attention to how much I was eating, stopped working out, etc) and slowly gained back 50. Better than all of it, but still a PITA to lose again.
carbs are routinely half my macros. unless you are diabetic or have another health issue requiring a low carb diet, calories are king.
Hey, how do i open my diary for y’all??
I’m 5’2 and 24 if that’s helps any?
It's in side menu> Settings> Diary Settings> Diary Sharing2 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »If you open your diary, we can probably help you more (or at least check and see if your logging looks accurate and that you are eating a healthy amount while remaining in a deficit)
I do hope you are eating back some exercise calories.
I am old(er) and short (5'1) and lose on 1500 calories consistently. Even maintenance for me at 120 pounds will be around 1400ish calories. You look to be much younger than me, and statistically, you are probably taller. Both factors contribute to how much you can eat while still being in a deficit and losing weight. the one who can eat the most and still lose... wins, at least in my book LOL
a slower rate of loss where you can maintain that lifestyle to maintain the weight loss is better than a fast rate of loss that (could be possibly dangerous over time) but also that you may not be able to sustain long term, and gain some or all of the weight back. I maintained a 120ish pound weight loss for 2 or 3 years, then got lazy (stopped paying attention to how much I was eating, stopped working out, etc) and slowly gained back 50. Better than all of it, but still a PITA to lose again.
carbs are routinely half my macros. unless you are diabetic or have another health issue requiring a low carb diet, calories are king.
Hey, how do i open my diary for y’all??
I’m 5’2 and 24 if that’s helps any?
It's in side menu> Settings> Diary Settings> Diary Sharing
ok lemme go do it
1 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »If you open your diary, we can probably help you more (or at least check and see if your logging looks accurate and that you are eating a healthy amount while remaining in a deficit)
I do hope you are eating back some exercise calories.
I am old(er) and short (5'1) and lose on 1500 calories consistently. Even maintenance for me at 120 pounds will be around 1400ish calories. You look to be much younger than me, and statistically, you are probably taller. Both factors contribute to how much you can eat while still being in a deficit and losing weight. the one who can eat the most and still lose... wins, at least in my book LOL
a slower rate of loss where you can maintain that lifestyle to maintain the weight loss is better than a fast rate of loss that (could be possibly dangerous over time) but also that you may not be able to sustain long term, and gain some or all of the weight back. I maintained a 120ish pound weight loss for 2 or 3 years, then got lazy (stopped paying attention to how much I was eating, stopped working out, etc) and slowly gained back 50. Better than all of it, but still a PITA to lose again.
carbs are routinely half my macros. unless you are diabetic or have another health issue requiring a low carb diet, calories are king.
Hey, how do i open my diary for y’all??
I’m 5’2 and 24 if that’s helps any?
It's in side menu> Settings> Diary Settings> Diary Sharing
ok lemme go do it
okay i did it.
1 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »2lbs per week is a pretty high rate of loss, the only thing that is the issue is your expectations.
Why do you need to burn 650 calories per day? Your calorie deficit is already factored into your calorie goal. Also if you're going 10000 steps per day, have you set yourself as Active when choosing your activity level?
i thought in order to lose weight you have to burn more calories than you’re eating? i saw that on tik tok
You do have to burn more than you're eating but that is already accounted for in your calorie goal.
When you go through the guided set up and it takes all your personal stats and the activity level that you have chosen and estimates how many calories you maintain on, the rate of loss you choose dictates your calorie goal.
0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »tinkerbellang83 wrote: »2lbs per week is a pretty high rate of loss, the only thing that is the issue is your expectations.
Why do you need to burn 650 calories per day? Your calorie deficit is already factored into your calorie goal. Also if you're going 10000 steps per day, have you set yourself as Active when choosing your activity level?
i thought in order to lose weight you have to burn more calories than you’re eating? i saw that on tik tok
You do have to burn more than you're eating but that is already accounted for in your calorie goal.
When you go through the guided set up and it takes all your personal stats and the activity level that you have chosen and estimates how many calories you maintain on, the rate of loss you choose dictates your calorie goal.
okay so when i set it up i wasn’t active at all, then last week i started being active. i work out for about 20 mins (full body workout) & 10k steps daily.
0 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »2lbs per week is a pretty high rate of loss, the only thing that is the issue is your expectations.
Why do you need to burn 650 calories per day? Your calorie deficit is already factored into your calorie goal. Also if you're going 10000 steps per day, have you set yourself as Active when choosing your activity level?
i thought in order to lose weight you have to burn more calories than you’re eating? i saw that on tik tok
You are burning calories every second of every day, just being alive is the biggest component of your daily calorie needs. All the organs in your body burn calories to function.
Exercise also isn't supposed to be used to boost the rate of weight loss if you use this site as designed - the idea is to reinforce a bit of a life lesson in that the more you do, the more you eat. And also of course the less you do the less you should eat. Your daily calorie goal is only intended to be for a day when no purposeful exercise.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K 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
- 386 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
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions