Low Carb Diets Support Thread

pamsdish

kah22 wrote: »

Any low carber out there help me understand percentages.

At the moment I'm aiming at 1459 to 1500 calories a day. There are stats on MyFitnessPal that give percentages I should be aiming at as: Carbs 50%, Protein 20% and Fat 30%. Those stats especially the Carbs and Fats seem wrong for a LCHF diet. Can anyone suggest what I should set these to?

Many thanks

Kevin ��

I use M.F.P. too, log in then click goals, you can adjust your protein carbs fats there, be aware all foods are user logged and it`s best to check accurate before you use them, not everyone is so carb aware, and they only log the cals, my currents are 15% carbs, 20% protein and 65% fats, but it is better to tweak them to individuals.
I restrict myself to 1400/1500 cals per day too.

kah22

I've set my initial goals at: Cabs 10%, Protine 20%, Fat 70% fat.

When I loose 7 lbs I'll probably raise the Carbs to 15% that should let me have a little bit more fruit and perhaps an occasional treat

Kevin

Pop_Up_Pirate

fireblade28 wrote: »

I believe you stated that calories don't matter........

They are very important, it's clear that you haven't read the scientific studies that I posted earlier that show that calories are the driving factor behind weight loss. Thus rendering low carb unnecessary. You don't need to give up carbs and foods you like just to lose weight. You just need less.

Yes I did state "calories don't matter" when I was talking about why the other poster was feeling carrpy.
The 'low carb flu' has nothing to do with calories.

Yes, I read the bits of information you supplied, I read a lot of different scientific opinions and I could find an equal number of scientific reports that will tell you low carb is the way to go.

I don't know what YOU think 'Low Carb' means. Maybe we should change the name of the 'diet' and call it by something more accurate; lets call it the PROPER diet.

You see, low carb doesn't mean NO Carbs, It means to take the carbs we need from PROPER food sources such as fruits and vegetables rather than from STARCHES or PROCESSED foods such as bread, rice, potatoes, cereals, sugars etc.
The human body is not designed to deal with bread, suagr and cereals in the quantities we eat in these days and it does not digest them PROPERLY, resulting in insulin spikes.
Those insulin spikes interfere with the way CALORIES work.

Now the occasional insulin spike will do no harm but the Western diet has people causing these spikes all day long. From cereals and toast at breakfast, to meat pie with yorkshire puddings and potatoes followed with a pud in the evening.
And all those insulin spikes cause hunger, storage of fat, and the metabolic rate decreases which can result in weight gain even if you eat fewer calories.

This is why many calories controlled diets do not work. They simply do not take into account the effects of insulin release.

Replace those above meals with bacon, eggs, mushrooms and spinach (friend in lard), a bowl of HM chicken soup made with olive oil, and roasted vegetables (olive oil) with salmon, you still get the Carbs your body needs, you will feel full longer and will have no cravings because insulin is not spiking.

So someone wanting to lose weight, if you made both sets of meals the same amount of CALORIES, on the first meal plan, you wouldn't lose weight but you would with the 2nd one.
So it really doesn't matter what the CALORIE number is, what matters is the way the calories are consumed and processed.

Put the PROPER fuel into your body and calories take care of themselves. No need for a calorie obsessive world, which only results in people eating less, but still eating the same carp and struggle to lose weight,

Pop_Up_Pirate

fireblade28 wrote: »

Thats fine and I can do that but it isn't my view its the scientific consensus. There's just so much media misinformation out there why is why things like low carb got started in the first place.

I think you will find Cavemen started the "Low Carb Diet" long before the media, or calories ever came into our thinking.

Pop_Up_Pirate

fireblade28 wrote: »

Protein should always be the highest in any diet.

Protein is more thermic than fats and carbohydrates. Ie it requires more energy to digest. So your net calories will be lower. Ie If the food takes more energy to digest then you will be storing less energy.

Protein is also extremely important to keep high to reduce muscle wastage. This is why people stall on diets because their protein isn't high enough. They start losing lean muscle mass which reduces their metabolism (Metabolism is depended on the amount of muscle you carry)

If you really want low carb then go 50% protein 35% fats 15% carbs.

No it shouldn't be protein for the average person
Todays diet is very HIGH in protein. Most of us are NOT deficient in protein and do not need the HIGH amounts we eat on a modern diet.

A plate shouldn't have more than 25% protein, ideally.

DEBTMONKEY1A

Forget calories otherwise Low Carbing beovomes another 'diet' rather than way of eating. Eat lots of fat, medium protein, low carb. Whilst I personally did not like the 'structure' of plans like Atkins it does help you get used to carb content, etc in the short term. Like wise on a personal basis I knew enough about carb counts to not stick to 'counting' nett carbs religiously-I knew what approx 20-25 gm net carbs were without counting but some folks might like the 'rigid' nature of a plan to get used to Low Carb & THEN make it a way of eating.

Essentially decnt carby veg-swede/turnip/celeariac (lovely mashed with butter/crem+ cheese), green carbs like broccoli, cabbage, etc salads like spinich, once in the 'swing' after th 1st 2 wks or so introduce nuts etc etc. Even furter down the line add apples (weigh to get an idea of net carbs-small apple should be fine in later stages), low carb fruit frozen berries, ALDI is very cheap-smoothies with full fat coconut milk etc.

Secret in my opinion is knowledge-knowing HOW it works & the relative carb counts of things.

Tip-to save a bloo*dy fortune on low carb sweetener-buy powdered pure sucralose on Amazon-a small £12 odd pack lasts a year or more-1 part by volume powder to 3 parts water-dissolve-microwave for 5-8 secs if does not dissolve-put in dropper bottle. I drop + 2 tsp sugar (obviously reduce quantity to 1 part powder/6 water for equivalent of 1tsp per drop). Google 'dropper bottle' or Amazon it (not sure where on high st to get empty bottles). If you check out cost of the liquid pre-bought 'liquid sucralose' on Ebay/Amazon-you'll see this way saves a fortune!!!!

Google some recipes on Atkins UK forum recipe section (check out ones made/posted by chris). Loads of low carb stuff can be made or frozen. the 'muffin in a minute' breads/sweet scone type microwave things are urber fast & can be done in 1 min & frozen if needed, for later in tage google 'hybrid pizza' for BRILL pizza bases (all types of lc bases reviewd & recipes given)....google 'low carb comfort food' -BRILL book with fab recipes, google 'dried black soy bean uk supplier' or try http://www.realfoods.co.uk/product/494/organic-soya-beans-black -buy a load to get free postage-cook (pressure cook is quick)-freeze in zip lock bags-use for loads of things for later stages of diet...very low carb-go to Asian Supermarkets for 500g/1kg bags groung almonds/raw unground brown flax seed-cheaper than anywhere else....I could go on.

Once you've reached your weight as I have (over 4 stone off now-as a chap I can see my abs lol) you can on occaision have the odd carby thing (if you have real serious issues with these foods be carefull or avoid-no issue for me) & you overall won't put on weight.

DON'T COUNT CALORIES is my message & if you can-do some weight training/gym work-its a WAY OF EATING-if you count everything it just becomes another 'diet'....rant over (!).

WantToBeSE

Morning All

Although i am primarily doing this for health reasons, i also need to lose a little weight (only a stone). Stepped on the scale this morning, and on day 6 i have lost 1lb! Really pleased with that, especially because i ate ice cream last night, and chocolate. Oops!

But the biggest change is that i am much less bloated! If i were focused on this as a weight loss diet primarily, i would probably be better off measuring inches, but as it's more for health reasons i'm not bothering.

And i agree with not counting calories..who the hec has time for that? What's wrong with intuitive eating? I love it!

fireblade28

Yes I did state "calories don't matter" when I was talking about why the other poster was feeling carrpy.
The 'low carb flu' has nothing to do with calories.

Okay that's fine

Yes, I read the bits of information you supplied, I read a lot of different scientific opinions and I could find an equal number of scientific reports that will tell you low carb is the way to go.

Well the link I posted was from examine which are independent scientists that review research. The literature overall shows that calories is the driving factor

I don't know what YOU think 'Low Carb' means. Maybe we should change the name of the 'diet' and call it by something more accurate; lets call it the PROPER diet.

You see, low carb doesn't mean NO Carbs, It means to take the carbs we need from PROPER food sources such as fruits and vegetables rather than from STARCHES or PROCESSED foods such as bread, rice, potatoes, cereals, sugars etc.
The human body is not designed to deal with bread, suagr and cereals in the quantities we eat in these days and it does not digest them PROPERLY, resulting in insulin spikes.
Those insulin spikes interfere with the way CALORIES work.

Now the occasional insulin spike will do no harm but the Western diet has people causing these spikes all day long. From cereals and toast at breakfast, to meat pie with yorkshire puddings and potatoes followed with a pud in the evening.
And all those insulin spikes cause hunger, storage of fat, and the metabolic rate decreases which can result in weight gain even if you eat fewer calories.

This is why many calories controlled diets do not work. They simply do not take into account the effects of insulin release.

You are correct that one of insulins primary roles is the cause the storage of fat but in the literature it simply doesn't play out under experiments. But the assumption that the more insulin is spiked causes more fat is flawed. It cannot override calories. In the long term it results in no difference. Fat storage doesn't need insulin to occur.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

Replace those above meals with bacon, eggs, mushrooms and spinach (friend in lard), a bowl of HM chicken soup made with olive oil, and roasted vegetables (olive oil) with salmon, you still get the Carbs your body needs, you will feel full longer and will have no cravings because insulin is not spiking.

Insulin actually increases the feeling of being full.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21294236

So someone wanting to lose weight, if you made both sets of meals the same amount of CALORIES, on the first meal plan, you wouldn't lose weight but you would with the 2nd one.
So it really doesn't matter what the CALORIE number is, what matters is the way the calories are consumed and processed.

Put the PROPER fuel into your body and calories take care of themselves. No need for a calorie obsessive world, which only results in people eating less, but still eating the same carp and struggle to lose weight.

I understand the logic but it just doesn't pan out. As seen here.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

In calorie equated diets people don't lose weight any faster with low carb.

This is one of many studies showing that conclusion. It is what the overall literature shows.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/1/23.long

Now it is correct that processed foods are more readily absorbed therefore you receive a greater calorie content from them. But calories are still the most important factor.


You don't have to be calorie obsessed once you have trained yourself to recognise amounts of foods you become good at estimating and you can eat whatever foods you want.

Mojisola

fireblade28 wrote: »

In calorie equated diets people don't lose weight any faster with low carb.

This is one of many studies showing that conclusion. It is what the overall literature shows.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/1/23.long

Doesn't the graph show that they do?
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/1/23/F3.expansion.html

WantToBeSE

Does it matter? If people are happy doing what they are doing, and losing weight, who cares.