Zero Carb eating
Options
Replies
-
I get what you are trying to say.. the SAD.. the one recommended by every doctor I have had, with minor changes.. about 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein.. isn't followed correctly.
We don't give a pass to other diets, when what is intended is not followed 100%.. we don't act as if they are separate diets.. someone eating mostly bacon on LC, wouldn't be doing LC properly, but their failures get tossed in as being LC, and used to inflate the failure rate.
The truth is, that this SAD, leads to what people eat. They try to eat what is supposed to be eaten on the diet, but most fail to do so. Those are the results of people being told to eat SAD, and given general guidelines.. manufacturers promote a lot of unhealthy things sold as food, to them, but they do the same for Atkins, and Keto, and all low carb diets. This allows the person to meet their macros, and calories, and count things like pizza as " veggies ", because it is plant-based.. that is what is intended from SAD, but it is the reality.
We may simply disagree on this, but for the purpose of this thread, when I say the SAD, I'm talking about the diet, as your doctor would recommend. No, the doctors would never recommend how people actually DO the diet.
I think the SAD as recommended is healthy, if you can stick to it.. but sadly, the majority, including me, can't stick to it.. which is a common issue among ALL diets. Which is why NO one diet works for everyone.. but my primary care doctors, simply parrot what the books say, having no actual knowledge of diet. Doctors tend to know more about how to fix people AFTER they get sick, with surgery, and pills, but when I ran a pizzeria, the doctors at the local hospital were some of our best customers. They read the same things you or I would, if we typed in a Google search, and when someone actually asks them about diet.. after the shock wears off, they remember what they are told to say. My doctor actually just printed out a sheet, and handed it to me. Only recently have they started accepting my daily reports, which I bring them, and not sure they even read them, or care. All they care about is what pills I am on, and setting up tests, and when necessary, surgery. That's what they specialize in.
So I agree the SAD is not done the way a doctor would recommend by most people, but it's still the SAD. The one most people follow poorly, based on the info the doctor recommended. You can't just say the majority who fail aren't on the diet.. if every diet was allowed to do that, EVERY diet would be a 100% success.
If doctors actually wanted people to eat the SAD right, they would refer ALL patients to a dietitian, an expert, so more did it correctly.1 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: »I get what you are trying to say.. the SAD.. the one recommended by every doctor I have had, with minor changes.. about 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein.. isn't followed correctly.
We don't give a pass to other diets, when what is intended is not followed 100%.. we don't act as if they are separate diets.. someone eating mostly bacon on LC, wouldn't be doing LC properly, but their failures get tossed in as being LC, and used to inflate the failure rate.
The truth is, that this SAD, leads to what people eat. They try to eat what is supposed to be eaten on the diet, but most fail to do so. Those are the results of people being told to eat SAD, and given general guidelines.. manufacturers promote a lot of unhealthy things sold as food, to them, but they do the same for Atkins, and Keto, and all low carb diets. This allows the person to meet their macros, and calories, and count things like pizza as " veggies ", because it is plant-based.. that is what is intended from SAD, but it is the reality.
We may simply disagree on this, but for the purpose of this thread, when I say the SAD, I'm talking about the diet, as your doctor would recommend. No, the doctors would never recommend how people actually DO the diet.
I think the SAD as recommended is healthy, if you can stick to it.. but sadly, the majority, including me, can't stick to it.. which is a common issue among ALL diets. Which is why NO one diet works for everyone.. but my primary care doctors, simply parrot what the books say, having no actual knowledge of diet. Doctors tend to know more about how to fix people AFTER they get sick, with surgery, and pills, but when I ran a pizzeria, the doctors at the local hospital were some of our best customers. They read the same things you or I would, if we typed in a Google search, and when someone actually asks them about diet.. after the shock wears off, they remember what they are told to say. My doctor actually just printed out a sheet, and handed it to me. Only recently have they started accepting my daily reports, which I bring them, and not sure they even read them, or care. All they care about is what pills I am on, and setting up tests, and when necessary, surgery. That's what they specialize in.
So I agree the SAD is not done the way a doctor would recommend by most people, but it's still the SAD. The one most people follow poorly, based on the info the doctor recommended. You can't just say the majority who fail aren't on the diet.. if every diet was allowed to do that, EVERY diet would be a 100% success.
If doctors actually wanted people to eat the SAD right, they would refer ALL patients to a dietitian, an expert, so more did it correctly.
What makes the Western Pattern Diet / Standard American Diet sad is not the macro breakdown, but the EXCESS consumption of calories and the nutritional quality of the specific foods comprising those macronutrients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_pattern_diet
The Western pattern diet (WPD) is a modern dietary pattern that is generally characterized by high intakes of red meat, processed meat, pre-packaged foods, butter, candy and sweets, fried foods, conventionally-raised animal products, high-fat dairy products, eggs, refined grains, potatoes, corn (and high-fructose corn syrup) and high-sugar drinks, and low intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, pasture-raised animal products, fish, nuts, and seeds.[1] The modern standard American diet was brought about by fundamental lifestyle changes following the Neolithic Revolution, and, later, the Industrial Revolution.[2]
By contrast, a healthy diet ("prudent pattern") has higher proportions of unprocessed fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, white meat, fish, and whole-grain foods13 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: »I get what you are trying to say.. the SAD.. the one recommended by every doctor I have had, with minor changes.. about 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein.. isn't followed correctly.
To somewhat echo kshama, what defines the SAD is NOT macro mix (what defines MOST diets is not macro mix), but the reliance on so-called hyperpalatable processed convenience type foods and the lack of vegetables, whole grains, etc. On average the SAD may be about 50% carbs, 15% protein, and 35% fat -- so not even the numbers you used -- but they can be all over the place. (You can do a low carb version of a SAD diet easily enough.)
What doctors recommend, generally, is something like the healthy eating pattern diet, like I cited, and NOT the SAD.We don't give a pass to other diets, when what is intended is not followed 100%.. we don't act as if they are separate diets.. someone eating mostly bacon on LC, wouldn't be doing LC properly, but their failures get tossed in as being LC, and used to inflate the failure rate.
Doing the so-called SAD when recommended the healthy-eating pattern diet is not "not doing the diet correctly." It's "not doing the diet, period."
The difference is that the healthy-eating pattern diet focuses on food choice. Keto is defined by macros and specifically the very low carb level. One can do what I would call healthy-eating keto and non-nutrition-focused keto or anything in-between. That it's not nutrition-focused doesn't make it not keto (and of course one can definitely still lose weight doing it, as one can even eating the SAD), but when the definition of a way of eating is about the nutritional content, eating a SAD-like diet is simply not that diet.If doctors actually wanted people to eat the SAD right, they would refer ALL patients to a dietitian, an expert, so more did it correctly.
Again, doctors aren't recommending the SAD.
Similarly, the Mediterranean diet is about food choice, NOT macros. It's pretty rare for diets to be defined by macros but for "IIFYM" -- and there the macros are self-defined -- or various versions of low carb (and many who do low carb ALSO focus on aspects of the healthy-eating pattern, like me) or the small number of people who do the 80-10-10 version of WFPB.11 -
Btw: the claim that the majority cannot stick to a healthy-eating pattern diet (which btw uses diet in the broader "eating pattern" meaning and not "eating for weight loss") is something I think is obviously false. The vast majority certainly could, but maybe find cooking inconvenient or don't want to eat various nutrient dense foods that are part of that way of eating (as you yourself have testified saying you just don't want to eat vegetables).9
-
There are lots of things we could do right, but in the end, do not do so. We call these things we can't do. You think that simply means the " healthy " diet, you support works, even though most people do not succeed on it. I'm not saying whatever you think is healthy, in your opinion, won't work, but like ALL diets, it only works for a minority. Which is why we have so many diets people succeed on, but all together, it's still less than half the people.
There is no " healthy diet ". That is just a figment of your imagination, dependent completely on whether a person actually CAN stick to the diet spoken of.. whether vegan, the SAD, Keto, ZC, or a Mediterranean diet, they are only helpful to a fraction of the population. The ability to stay on a diet, is part of the diet. If it isn't convenient for the user, for example, then it is unhealthy for most people, because the diet won't be able to done properly, by most people.
You are trying to say that although the majority of all people fail to get a diet that works, you have one which is healthy.. when the reality is, probably only 5-10 % max, can follow it correctly, and get the results you needed. So whatever diet you think IS healthy, is NOT for at least 90% of people... which isn't that bad, if it is that high.
The difference is, you are trying to define success, in a way you wouldn't extend to anyone else.. if their diets are inconvenient, and people quit, you would say.. it wasn't healthy for that person.. I would agree, but think you need to either apply your fantasy measure of success to ALL diets, or admit whatever plan you like, has just as much of a failure rate, as other plans.
I simply disagree with your attempt to rig the data, by suggesting all the failures of the SAD, are some other diet, to improve the success rate.. the failures count for any diet, just as much as the successes, and I would argue that if the diet is hard to stick to, that should be a measure of it's success or not.. in other words, if a diet is hard to stick to, then that is part of the criteria used to judge a diet, not something you write off.
The difference is, I freely admit most people won't stick to LC, or in this case, ZC, eating only animal products. You would count all the people who start, and quit, as failures, on these plans, but whatever you think is a healthy plan.. you are suggesting is them not doing the diet. No, they are doing the diet, but find it hard to do, or they don't like it, and quit... FAILURE. The thing is, failure is OK. Most people will fail at ANY diet, but instead of lying about our favorite diet, which worked for us, we should all just be honest, and say a healthy diet is the one you stay on, which gets you results, and THAT is not ONE diet.. it varies for all of us.
The SAD is a general guideline, that you will hear from any regular doctor.. changing a few percent on the macros, doesn't change the diet. In a big country, they may use different foods, or have slightly different macro ratios, but still have far too many carbs, not enough fat, to be what I would consider low carb. Of course, those are MY opinions though, but it is why people fail so much.. as soon as a diet plan is made.. people start trying to sabotage it.. make it easier, so more people will follow it, make fake food that fits in the plan, but is garbage. Look at Atkins.. as soon as it got popular, the strictness ended, and they started making exceptions.. sugar alcohols come to mind. Then came garbage foods.. bars, shakes.. which are candy bars and shakes, but make the person who think Atkins is cool, feel as if they are doing it as intended. The diet is basically ruined, unless you stick to actual food, and read an older version, which actually worked. The new stuff is just junk they can sell to make themselves rich. Guess what, those failures, even if I think they aren't doing Atkins, are still Atkins. It's what people consider Atkins now.. how they do the diet, in the real world.
What we have are special diets, which most people find when they fail on the SAD, which we learn as children, but obviously not good enough. Not being a scientist, or being a person who questions the manufacturer of products, we eat a lot of junk, which we consider to be part of the SAD.
This reminds me of the word liberal in politics. That word started being a problem, so they simply came up with progressive, but it was the same people. Or a company, which changes it's name, once the old one is loathed by people, or they simply spin the losing part of a company off, to bury the failure, then let that spin-off go bankrupt.. while protecting whatever they want to look better, and more profitable.
I find it amusing. You are simply wrong. Most people eat the SAD, and do so poorly. That simply means the diet, in all it's variations, doesn't work for most people. This shouldn't matter, except that people feel compelled to compete, and have the BEST diet. The truth is, if we counted them accurately, we would likely find that most diets have about the same success rate, and we should define success on the patient being healthy, reaching and maintaining a healthy weight, and being able to stick to the diet.
When you find that, what you decide to call it, doesn't really matter. If it makes you feel better for me to say.. the DIET almost every doctor recommends, then fine, but I will call it the SAD, and that's simply for reference.. in this case, my primary care doctor, would repeat what little he was trained to say, when asked what was a healthy diet.
So we will likely disagree, but now you know what I will mean, when I say the SAD in the future. It isn't derogatory. The SAD is just as successful as most other diets. I really don't care if you disagree, because it doesn't really matter . You can choose to not agree on what SAD is, or simply know what I mean when I say SAD. If you choose to just not listen, then you will simply not have any idea what I am talking about.. you'll be off arguing about what the SAD is, while I am talking about what matters to me.. which isn't a squabble about what SAD is.
Good Luck with your healthy diet. I'll go back to what I feel will work for me, and we can both have an awesome day.3 -
Actually, I don't know what you mean by SAD other than 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein. That macro mix can allow someone to lose, maintain, or gain, depending on the calories. So by SAD do you mean 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein AND excess calories?
In that case, well, OF COURSE it will fail as a diet. Any WOE where excess calories are consumed will fail as a weight loss method.
I'm currently using 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein and losing weight, because my CI < CO.
I'm not doing SAD as everyone but you understands it, because I am eating "a healthy diet ("prudent pattern") [with] higher proportions of unprocessed fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, white meat, fish, and whole-grain foods."9 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Actually, I don't know what you mean by SAD other than 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein.
Which, as you and I both know, is not even what is supposed to be meant by SAD. I think it's funny that even the macros are different than the average SAD macros (50/15/35), even though one can eat the SAD with a huge range of macros.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »russellholtslander1 wrote: »I get what you are trying to say.. the SAD.. the one recommended by every doctor I have had, with minor changes.. about 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein.. isn't followed correctly.
We don't give a pass to other diets, when what is intended is not followed 100%.. we don't act as if they are separate diets.. someone eating mostly bacon on LC, wouldn't be doing LC properly, but their failures get tossed in as being LC, and used to inflate the failure rate.
The truth is, that this SAD, leads to what people eat. They try to eat what is supposed to be eaten on the diet, but most fail to do so. Those are the results of people being told to eat SAD, and given general guidelines.. manufacturers promote a lot of unhealthy things sold as food, to them, but they do the same for Atkins, and Keto, and all low carb diets. This allows the person to meet their macros, and calories, and count things like pizza as " veggies ", because it is plant-based.. that is what is intended from SAD, but it is the reality.
We may simply disagree on this, but for the purpose of this thread, when I say the SAD, I'm talking about the diet, as your doctor would recommend. No, the doctors would never recommend how people actually DO the diet.
I think the SAD as recommended is healthy, if you can stick to it.. but sadly, the majority, including me, can't stick to it.. which is a common issue among ALL diets. Which is why NO one diet works for everyone.. but my primary care doctors, simply parrot what the books say, having no actual knowledge of diet. Doctors tend to know more about how to fix people AFTER they get sick, with surgery, and pills, but when I ran a pizzeria, the doctors at the local hospital were some of our best customers. They read the same things you or I would, if we typed in a Google search, and when someone actually asks them about diet.. after the shock wears off, they remember what they are told to say. My doctor actually just printed out a sheet, and handed it to me. Only recently have they started accepting my daily reports, which I bring them, and not sure they even read them, or care. All they care about is what pills I am on, and setting up tests, and when necessary, surgery. That's what they specialize in.
So I agree the SAD is not done the way a doctor would recommend by most people, but it's still the SAD. The one most people follow poorly, based on the info the doctor recommended. You can't just say the majority who fail aren't on the diet.. if every diet was allowed to do that, EVERY diet would be a 100% success.
If doctors actually wanted people to eat the SAD right, they would refer ALL patients to a dietitian, an expert, so more did it correctly.
What makes the Western Pattern Diet / Standard American Diet sad is not the macro breakdown, but the EXCESS consumption of calories and the nutritional quality of the specific foods comprising those macronutrients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_pattern_diet
The Western pattern diet (WPD) is a modern dietary pattern that is generally characterized by high intakes of red meat, processed meat, pre-packaged foods, butter, candy and sweets, fried foods, conventionally-raised animal products, high-fat dairy products, eggs, refined grains, potatoes, corn (and high-fructose corn syrup) and high-sugar drinks, and low intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, pasture-raised animal products, fish, nuts, and seeds.[1] The modern standard American diet was brought about by fundamental lifestyle changes following the Neolithic Revolution, and, later, the Industrial Revolution.[2]
By contrast, a healthy diet ("prudent pattern") has higher proportions of unprocessed fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, white meat, fish, and whole-grain foods
I currently eat an excess of calories on a carnivore diet. Many of those excess calories are of poor nutritional quality (low micronutrient content and incomplete protein) nutrients... pork rinds. Does that mean I am actually eating SAD?0 -
Results of Day 4: Down another 8/10ths of a lb. Most of my water weight must be gone, so slowing daily. So I am 271.6.
My blood sugars were 133/143/98. This morning, my blood sugar was 114.. So numbers are coming down. I don't know what exactly caused the higher numbers the past 2 days.
I feel good, and have lots of energy today, despite being kind of sleepy/worn out the past 2 days. That was expected.
I did not eat all the tuna for lunch yesterday, so having that for breakfast.. lunch and dinner is 2.55 lbs. of whole chicken thighs. NO butter today. A little mayo with tuna ( 3 Tbsp. ), but mostly just baked chicken.0 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »russellholtslander1 wrote: »I get what you are trying to say.. the SAD.. the one recommended by every doctor I have had, with minor changes.. about 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein.. isn't followed correctly.
We don't give a pass to other diets, when what is intended is not followed 100%.. we don't act as if they are separate diets.. someone eating mostly bacon on LC, wouldn't be doing LC properly, but their failures get tossed in as being LC, and used to inflate the failure rate.
The truth is, that this SAD, leads to what people eat. They try to eat what is supposed to be eaten on the diet, but most fail to do so. Those are the results of people being told to eat SAD, and given general guidelines.. manufacturers promote a lot of unhealthy things sold as food, to them, but they do the same for Atkins, and Keto, and all low carb diets. This allows the person to meet their macros, and calories, and count things like pizza as " veggies ", because it is plant-based.. that is what is intended from SAD, but it is the reality.
We may simply disagree on this, but for the purpose of this thread, when I say the SAD, I'm talking about the diet, as your doctor would recommend. No, the doctors would never recommend how people actually DO the diet.
I think the SAD as recommended is healthy, if you can stick to it.. but sadly, the majority, including me, can't stick to it.. which is a common issue among ALL diets. Which is why NO one diet works for everyone.. but my primary care doctors, simply parrot what the books say, having no actual knowledge of diet. Doctors tend to know more about how to fix people AFTER they get sick, with surgery, and pills, but when I ran a pizzeria, the doctors at the local hospital were some of our best customers. They read the same things you or I would, if we typed in a Google search, and when someone actually asks them about diet.. after the shock wears off, they remember what they are told to say. My doctor actually just printed out a sheet, and handed it to me. Only recently have they started accepting my daily reports, which I bring them, and not sure they even read them, or care. All they care about is what pills I am on, and setting up tests, and when necessary, surgery. That's what they specialize in.
So I agree the SAD is not done the way a doctor would recommend by most people, but it's still the SAD. The one most people follow poorly, based on the info the doctor recommended. You can't just say the majority who fail aren't on the diet.. if every diet was allowed to do that, EVERY diet would be a 100% success.
If doctors actually wanted people to eat the SAD right, they would refer ALL patients to a dietitian, an expert, so more did it correctly.
What makes the Western Pattern Diet / Standard American Diet sad is not the macro breakdown, but the EXCESS consumption of calories and the nutritional quality of the specific foods comprising those macronutrients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_pattern_diet
The Western pattern diet (WPD) is a modern dietary pattern that is generally characterized by high intakes of red meat, processed meat, pre-packaged foods, butter, candy and sweets, fried foods, conventionally-raised animal products, high-fat dairy products, eggs, refined grains, potatoes, corn (and high-fructose corn syrup) and high-sugar drinks, and low intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, pasture-raised animal products, fish, nuts, and seeds.[1] The modern standard American diet was brought about by fundamental lifestyle changes following the Neolithic Revolution, and, later, the Industrial Revolution.[2]
By contrast, a healthy diet ("prudent pattern") has higher proportions of unprocessed fruits, nuts, vegetables, legumes, white meat, fish, and whole-grain foods
I currently eat an excess of calories on a carnivore diet. Many of those excess calories are of poor nutritional quality (low micronutrient content and incomplete protein) nutrients... pork rinds. Does that mean I am actually eating SAD?
I would say not, because carnivore is definitely not standard for the US/parts of the world increasingly influenced by modern US eating patterns, whatever one thinks of it.
However, I think one could certainly eat a wide variety of macros and meet the definition.0 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: »There are lots of things we could do right, but in the end, do not do so. We call these things we can't do.
I'd call these things we choose not to do.You think that simply means the " healthy " diet, you support works, even though most people do not succeed on it.
I don't think most people don't succeed on it. I think most people don't really even bother to try it. Also, so we are clear, it's a diet as in "eating pattern." It can be used for weight gain, weight loss, or weight maintenance (as can any eating pattern).There is no " healthy diet ". That is just a figment of your imagination, dependent completely on whether a person actually CAN stick to the diet spoken of.
No, it's what is called a healthy eating pattern and what is typically recommended by doctors, as opposed to the SAD (to get back to the original disagreement). I would agree that numerous diets can be done healthfully or not, but that depends on nutrition, and IMO they tend to share many features like lots of veg, healthy fats, not eating a ton of added sugar or animal fats, decent amount of fiber, sufficient omega 3s vs omega 6s (including EPA and DHA, as well as ALA), so on.
You keep insisting that most people can't stay on such a way of eating, but that's just not true -- for example, there are parts of the world where people pretty much all eat in such a manner. It's only where we have the huge choice and convenience as in the US where people can decide to mostly eat highly processed foods with lots of added sugar and fat or a huge amount of processed meat or get a high percentage of food from take-out/fast food or premade items (some of which can be nutrient dense, of course) or just not eat vegetables/fruit (although there have been times for some poorer sections of society where veg/fruit would have been scarce, of course).You are trying to say that although the majority of all people fail to get a diet that works, you have one which is healthy.. when the reality is, probably only 5-10 % max, can follow it correctly, and get the results you needed. So whatever diet you think IS healthy, is NOT for at least 90% of people... which isn't that bad, if it is that high.
No, I haven't said any of that.
I don't think the majority of all people fail to get a diet "that works," I think people choose the diets they prefer, for the most part, or just don't think about what they eat.
I am not really talking about my own diet (which is not "the SAD") or saying it is the only healthful way to eat, I am talking about how the "healthful eating pattern" that tends to be recommended by doctors is not the SAD, that's an odd claim.
I am also saying that it is false to claim that only 5-10% of people can follow a healthful eating pattern. It was the normal way most people tended to eat when my parents were growing up and how I was raised and how most of my friends are raising their kids.
I also think, again, that it's entirely possible to maintain, gain, or lose on a healthful eating pattern (and that macros will vary person to person by preference and goals and what you find sating if you are trying to lose).I simply disagree with your attempt to rig the data, by suggesting all the failures of the SAD, are some other diet, to improve the success rate.. the failures count for any diet, just as much as the successes, and I would argue that if the diet is hard to stick to, that should be a measure of it's success or not.. in other words, if a diet is hard to stick to, then that is part of the criteria used to judge a diet, not something you write off.
It is truly bizarre that you keep calling the healthful eating pattern or, say, the Med diet, which is pretty much one version of the healthful eating pattern as "the SAD," when it is different in numerous important ways. It is as if you think the ONLY difference between different diets is macros, but even so it would make no sense as neither "the SAD" nor "the healthful eating pattern" nor examples of the healthful eating pattern like the Med diet have any particular macros that they must follow. Most people don't count macros and don't need to.The difference is, I freely admit most people won't stick to LC, or in this case, ZC, eating only animal products. You would count all the people who start, and quit, as failures, on these plans, but whatever you think is a healthy plan.. you are suggesting is them not doing the diet.
No, I basically just said that everyone can eat in a healthful manner as defined by doctors/the healthful eating pattern if one chooses to.
I do agree with you that if one is obese, especially substantially so, that #1 priority is likely weight loss by any means. They can learn to eat vegetables later. But the idea that most people can't manage to eat vegetables, etc., and that eating veg will cause them to fail is absurd -- it sounds like something a 6 year old who is picky might argue.The SAD is a general guideline, that you will hear from any regular doctor.. changing a few percent on the macros, doesn't change the diet.
Again, (1) SAD is not defined by macros, and (2) I don't think any doctors would recommend the SAD.
Nutrition is not defined by macros.12 -
I remember back in 2014 several were posting about Zero Carb Way Of Eating. That WOE didn't seem to take interest in the health and diversity of my gut microbiome. These days I try to eat 50 grams of high fiber carbs.4
-
Another day down, and I lost another 1.2 lbs. Down to 270.4. My blood sugars are doing well. 114/89/107 yesterday.
Today, I have to get everything ready for my trip. Laundry, packing, pills, and diabetic testing supplies. Have some late meetings tonight, and then tomorrow morning, go get my car rental, and gone. I won't likely be in contact again, until Monday night, or Tuesday morning.
There will be some walking this weekend, to see the art, maybe 2 miles, and happy that I will be able to walk that far. Losing water weight helps me a lot, since it accumulates around my heart and lungs, and makes breathing difficult, if I drink too much water, or eat carbs, which make me gain weight, and retain water. I found out my hotel has a fridge, so I am taking some 10 oz. bottles of water, so I can make sure I don't drink more than 2 liters of water a day ( my limit ), and with ZC meals, I should be able to enjoy the walking, instead of surviving it. Some of the places we are going, have trams to take you around, to see the sculptures, and in the city, they do sell bus tours of the art around the city. My friend's exhibit is indoors though, and the building is quite large since there are a lot of artists gathered. So I will have to walk until I find her section of the event. Not sure how many tables she has. I also plan to go to the zoo/aquarium, while there, on a different day, so more walking. Not sure I could have done this 6 months ago. Glad to be feeling good at this point. Hoping to feel good when I return home.
Breakfast was 4 eggs, with 3 Tbsp. butter. Lunch is 1.76 lbs. of whole chicken thighs, and dinner is a 10 oz. ribeye.
The weather looks to be great.. low 80's, partly sunny, so I shall be back next week, hopefully a couple lbs. lighter.2 -
You sound really good and that your program is working for you. Just not sure why you would want to limit your water intake. I understand that you feel better with less water weight. I would be concerned about electrolytes and not getting enough water. Wishing you the best.3
-
...drinking water shouldn't cause water retention. It actually tends to flush water. Ie: You drink enough and you pee more and it gets rid of things like excessive sodium and things you're holding onto. Add in something like tea and it's actively a diuretic.7
-
russellholtslander1 wrote: »I will be drinking an extra .5 liter of water a day ( 2.5 ), instead of 2, for the first 2 weeks, since I hope to miss the carb " flu ", which for me, seems to be from dehydration. I don't normally have this problem, if I drink a little extra water, until the diuretic effect lessens. I'm still limited on fluid intake, due to CHF, so of course, I will lose quickly at the start. The first 10-15 are just water. No need to be excited.
OP has medical issues, I'm going to guess the limited water intake is related to that, for those wondering about it.1 -
russellholtslander1 wrote: »I will be drinking an extra .5 liter of water a day ( 2.5 ), instead of 2, for the first 2 weeks, since I hope to miss the carb " flu ", which for me, seems to be from dehydration. I don't normally have this problem, if I drink a little extra water, until the diuretic effect lessens. I'm still limited on fluid intake, due to CHF, so of course, I will lose quickly at the start. The first 10-15 are just water. No need to be excited.
OP has medical issues, I'm going to guess the limited water intake is related to that, for those wondering about it.
AHA. Yep that would do it. Sorry!1 -
Yes, I have CHF .. congestive heart failure. Was either born with a faulty valve, or had carditis as a child.. the valve is bad, and by the time I was a teenager, I started having breathing issues.. diagnosed as asthma. So I stopped running around the neighborhood, about the same time I started eating junk.. mid-80's, and a decade later I was 361, and diagnosed with CHF @ 27.. 20 years ago.
I drink as much water as allowed, but even with diuretics, I retain some water, and if I do something, like drink tea, it tends to be sweet tea, and I drink half a gallon, and spend 2-3 days struggling to breathe, if I gain enough weight. I can gain 10 lbs. in a day.. also depends where I am to start.. if I was 250, I might get away with 1 time doing that. If I am 280, and jump to 290.. I might end up in the hospital, and given IV Lasix, to drop the water weight.
The bad valve, caused the heart to become more damaged over the years I was undiagnosed.. bad diet and no exercise helped. I was told I had 6 months to live in 2001, when diagnosed.. 20 years later, my heart is much stronger, and I take half the pills I did back then. I'm off oxygen, and can drink 2-2.5 liters a day. I choose to drink ice water exclusively. I could drink tea or coffee, without sugar.. but that would just make me think of sweet tea.. and I've never had coffee. Water works for me, just in limited amounts.
Since I am already on diuretics though, and was already doing low carb most of the time ( under 20 grams a day ).. my quick weight loss was not as much as it could be for someone else. I'm pretty much down to real weight loss already.
Some people lose 20-30 lbs. in the first 2 weeks, get dehydrated, and get the " carb flu ".. which I think is mostly dehydration. I do up my water intake, when starting a cycle of low carb, to avoid that, but it has to be limited.0 -
Just out of curiosity, is replacing the heart valve not on the table? My dad had a bad valve due to typhoid fever while in Vietnam, and his valve was replaced, with the result that his heart was much better for about ten years.
Also, how are you getting the micronutrients normally found in veg and fruit? Supplements?0 -
Back from my weekend trip. I stuck to my plan, even though my hotel did NOT have breakfast. I had to go to a restaurant for all my meals.. breakfast Sat. @ local diner.. they gave me 6 eggs for $6, plus beef sausage. Bob Evans allowed me to make my own 3 egg omelet Sun.. bacon, sausage, and cheese. I ate @ Brann's Steakhouse Friday night. I ordered 2 11 oz. steak meals, no sides. Saturday, I ate @ Longhorn Steakhouse, and had an 18 oz. T-Bone steak. Same restaurant on Sunday, but I ordered two 12 oz. Ribeyes. Food was expensive, but worth it. The ribeyes had over 1/2" of fat along the side. I left without breakfast this morning, and ate when I got home around noon. Took an hour to bake chicken. Then I took a 4 hour nap.
I am 268.4, down 2 lbs. since Thursday.. normally I weigh in @ 6 a.m., so this is an "unofficial" weigh in @ 4 p.m., but at least I didn't gain. I have food ready for dinner tonight, and going to watch The Lions game tonight. Tomorrow, I will resume checking my blood sugars. I just didn't want to do it on my semi-vacation.
We did get to meet up with my friend, and see her art exhibit, and spent an hour with her and her husband the day we arrived. We also went to a fish ladder zoo, and watched salmon jump up steps to go back upriver, and avoid the dam. Plus we drove around Grand Rapids, and saw dozens of murals, since it was ArtDrive.. which is why our friend had an exhibit/why we were there. I did too much walking, and then our room was at the back of the hotel.. very last room.. next time I will ask for a room near the door. We went swimming, but it wasn't heated. The cold water wasn't good for me.. made my heart pound in my chest, until I acclimated. I had also not eaten until 9 p.m., when I took my pills.. hours late, and got to bed @ 1 a.m. So Saturday morning, I had some chest issues.. almost felt like a stitch in my side, but on the side of my chest. So I decided not to do much that day. I went to see Fred Meijer Gardens, and we took the tram.. a 1 hour narrated tour. My morning pills kicked in by then, and I felt better, so I walked one area.. the Japanese Gardens.. maybe 1/2 a mile.. because it was hard to see from the tram. After that, we drove to Holland, then up the coast to Grand Haven, to see lake Michigan, and then back to Grand Rapids to see more art, then went to be earlier. Sunday, we went to see the Zoo, and I decided that while I felt good, I paid $30 each for Amigos.. electric carts, and it saved me walking 2-3 miles. That was fun, even if the zoo was mediocre. We found a huge bookstore, and got several books, and just relaxed most of the afternoon. Cut across this morning to Flint, on a smaller, curvier road, instead of I-96 straight across, then down to where we live. The ride was a lot nicer, even though it was only 64 degrees out.. a bit chilly.
I want to go to Atlanta next year, so this was a nice test run.. that will be longer, and there may not be 4 steakhouses within a mile of the hotel, but I think I can make it work, based on this.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions