Low Carb and Calories [Archive] - Protein Power Forums

gitfiddle

05-29-2008, 12:52 PM

It's always interesting to see how different people interpret the same sentences. I didn't get ANYthing out of that blog that indicated a preference for leaner meats over 'saturated fat.' The article was about fat inake in general.
I processed that idea and compared it to my current fat intake, which I don't measure religiously. I admit my first thought was where can I reduce my fat consumption and my second thought was cheese, nuts and high-fat meats. The operable word is reduce rather than cut out. This was instinctive because I'm losing weight at a snail's pace and thought I may be taking in more fat than I am burning.

I have a long history as a compulsive overeater, so I tend to take larger portions of protein and fat than might be helpful to my body. I'm always delighted to find that I can survive quite well on a small portion. Anyway, I need reminders, like Dr. Mikes blog, of the basics.

Hizzoner

05-29-2008, 01:28 PM

LisaS

05-29-2008, 07:44 PM

For me the takeaway was nothing new. You still need to be at a deficit to lose weight. Low-carb eating has two main avenues to help lose weight: 1) hormonal influences and 2) easy to get in caloric deficit

If you have stalled, log your calories for a few days to see if you are still at a deficit in overall calories or not. If not, look to your higher fat foods as you may need to exercise some portion control to return to a deficit.

Vesna

05-29-2008, 08:22 PM

I was not crazy about the "Low-Carb and Calories" post. I would welcome feedback from members here about the comments I left. Here's my first comment,, and Dr. Mike's reply.

Dr. Eades, I’m a big fan of yours and I’ve been eagerly awaiting this long-promised post about LC weight loss difficulties. But I’m disappointed. Essentially, this post addresses the question, “Why am I not losing weight even though I’m eating too much while low-carbing?” — a question with a built-in answer.
However, the big question is this: “Why am I not losing weight even though I’m low-carbing and can’t possibly be eating too much?”
For instance, I recently lost no weight at all over the course of about two months following a strict regimen of whole, homemade foods including VLC veg (salad-type stuff). 70-75% fat, carbs under 20g. No nuts, nothing with natural or artificial flavorings, MSG, etc listed on the label. No dairy products except cream and its derivatives (butter, cream cheese, sour cream). After the first few days, calorie intake fell naturally to around 1200-1500 per day, and I naturally quit snacking. My weight varied between 143 and 139 over the course of this experiment, then seemed to stabilize at about 142. (I should weigh around 125-130.)
From reading posts around the Net, I gather I’m not the only person in a similar situation. Many are much farther from a goal weight/body shape than I am — even though they stick with low-carb, natural foods, low-ish calorie eating for much longer periods than me, and even though some exercise a lot more than me — and for that I can only thank my lucky stars, I guess. Jimmy Moore, for one, recently posted about the rough time he’s having with a seemingly unexplainable substantial weight gain that he’s still having a rough time losing.
I trust you to take this seriously and not assume we’re all doing something silly like underestimating calorie intake or snacking mindlessly. We’re not overlooking newly built tremendous muscles. We’re not dropping inches and clothes sizes even though the scale isn’t moving. We’re not consuming hidden carbs in our Frankenfoods. When all this is the the case and still the body hangs on to every stored gram of fat, what’s going on? And how do we get it to let go?
Hi Vesna–
I can’t really say what’s going on without looking at food diaries and knowing a little more about you and your health. I’m assuming that the “butter, cream cheese, sour cream” are accounted for in your daily caloric measuring. One thing you can try that almost never fails is to go on an all-meat diet for a week or two. That always seems to get things moving. Eat meat only morning, noon and night. Drink non-caloric beverages. It works like a charm.
Once your weight is where you want it to be, go back on a regular low-carb multi food diet. As I’ll point out in a future post, it’s almost impossible to gain weight on a diligently-followed low-carb diet, so once you get to where you want to be, you should be able to stay there. The meat diet is just a temporary therapy to get you there quickly.
Cheers–
MRE

Vesna

05-29-2008, 08:28 PM

And here (in the quote area) is my second comment, which hasn't appeared on Dr. Mike's blog yet.

Does anyone else feel like that post was just a fancy way to say, "You're obviously eating too much -- just eat less"? When you're down to 1200 calories per day, you're obviously not eating too much -- the problem is with your body not burning enough. Yes, you're taking in more than you're burning. But when you're eating little, taking in even less is not going to be the solution.

Dr. Eades,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my comment and for your suggestion to try all meat for a while.
Could you explain what the mechanism would be that would make this effective? Is it simply a way to make it easier to reduce total calories, or would something else be going on? If it’s the former, I’ll be skeptical, because I already did low calories without experiencing weight loss. However, if you have reason to believe this regimen will somehow pulls some trigger that tells the fat cells to let go of what they’ve got in storage, then I will eagerly try it and let you know what happens! I’m planning a June 2 start.
(marly, above, said she did two months of all meat without weight loss; you assume, in your response to her, that she was eating too much. We won’t know if that’s the case unless she writes back.)
I also wonder if you can fill in a few practical specifics, such as: Is there a total calorie goal to aim for? What about the fat/protein ratio? Rendered meat fat like tallow OK? By all meat, I assume you mean not even eggs or butter? How about noncaloric seasonings like salt, pepper, cumin and the rest? Processed meats like bacon and sausage OK, if their ingredients list is reasonably good? Noncaloric sweeteners? Any particular cuts or cooking methods to focus on?
If you’ve described all this in another post (or a book chapter), please feel free to point me to it!
By the way, I’m in my mid-40s and have enjoyed lifelong excellent health. My frame is very slender and my legs are a few inches longer than most women of my height, so although I’m 5′7″, my ideal weight would be that of someone a few inches shorter than me. At 125, I looked fine; now, at around 145, I have a chubby, chunky torso (and am slender everywhere else). I would say I accumulate fat in an atypical pattern. Hope that info is helpful.
The more I work at this and communicate with others on the same path, the more I’m convinced that it’s really not calories, but metabolism. A metabolism that wants to cling to stored fat will do that, even when intake is reduced. A metabolism that doesn’t want to store fat won’t, even when intake is increased. I’m convinced that what I need is to coax my metabolism to behave a certain way. How to flip the switch — that, I believe, is the question. For me, and many others.
Thanks so much for your time and for all you and MD do!

Mitra

05-30-2008, 03:40 AM

Vesna, I don't know what the answer is - I've read stories similar to yours, too. Occasionally it will turn out that the person writing eats way off plan three nights a week, but mostly, it seems that someone is doing the "right" things, and getting no results.

My feeling on Dr Mike's post is that if someone is eating LC and not losing weight, excess calories from nuts, cheese and the like is definitely the first place to look, and will solve the problem in many cases, but it doesn't seem to be the answer in every case.

I'm also curious about the all-meat suggestion, given that Stefansson said some of the Eskimo women in particular, although not "corpulent," were heavier in middle age than when young (from Adventures in Diet). This might not be relevant to somebody who has a lot of weight to lose, but someone in your position with just a few pounds to lose, might well be a similar size to those women on their lifelong all meat diets.

A phase of our experiment has a relation to slimming, slenderizing, reducing, the treatment of obesity. I was "about ten pounds overweight" at the beginning of the meat diet and lost all of it. This reminds me to say that Eskimos, when still on their native meats, are never corpulent—at least I have seen none. They may be well fleshed. Some especially women, are notably heavier in middle age than when young. But they are not corpulent in our sense.

Vesna

05-30-2008, 07:28 AM

I'm also curious about the fine shades of meaning of "corpulent" and "notably heavier," especially from a 1920's North American perspective. Unfortunately, he seems to be using terms which would call up specific images to the reader of the time, but whose connotations have shifted since.

Mitra

05-30-2008, 07:34 AM

I'd like to know a bit more about the shades of meaning in the words, too, but Stefansson was writing well before Twiggy's days, so I wouldn't think his bodyweight ideals for women would be as thin as modern ones. It would be interesting to see some of his photos.

Mitra

05-30-2008, 07:46 AM

The cover of his book, Writing on Ice, shows a woman. She's well wrapped up, so it's hard to tell her exact size, but she doesn't look skinny.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PC43YWNKL._SS500_.jpg

Benay

05-30-2008, 07:48 AM

I am a slow loser. At one point I was so frustrated that I sent an email to Dr Mike outlining my age, start weight, current weight, length of time on PP, daily average composition of diet (ie ECCs etc) from my computer program, exercise regimen and calorie restriction to 1500. All of which I was monitoring faithfully with Diet Power, my computer program. In his reply he repeated that I should be losing between 2 to 6 pounds a week and couldn't understand why I was not losing as he had had so much success with his patients. He thought perhaps I might have a slugish thyroid, to have it checked out (which I did and it came back as within normal range) and maybe should be adding Kelp.

This was a very unhelpful response. I keep feeling that Dr Mike is like the qualitative researcher who gets distracted by interesting findings but never moves to do the number crunching (he has never to my knowledge done any kind of descriptive research on his patient files) to find out just what percentage of his patients lost 2 to 6 pounds a week and were they young men or older women, were they intensive exercisers or couch potatos, etc? He talks about his successes but we don't hear much about people who struggle and who they are.

I have found this discussion forum to be more helpful as both moderators and participants share their struggles with the PP lifestyle, with agonizingly slow weight loss, and things to try. I keep going back to the JAMA article Dr Mike blogged upon (the one that compared 4 groups of women for 12 months on the 4 diet programs ranging from low carb to low fat.) and am becoming more and more interested in the women toward the end of the 12 month period. In all 4 groups, the women were gaining weight on average on 1800 calories.

I am pleased that Dr Mike is FINALLY admitting that calories count in any weight loss program. He has been avoiding that for years with his emphasis upon low ECC. (Remember the story in PPLP or was it PP? of the obese woman who complained that she was not losing weight eating low ECC and when they calculated her daily diet she was consuming 5,000 calories a day and STILL lost 5 pounds.)

But, at least for women, calorie restriction + ECC are critical. He admits that he himself eats only 1700 calories a day, on average, and does not gain or lose. This says to me, I had better eat less than that if I want to lose. To arrive at less than 1700 calories a day, I need to watch my fat content as well as my ECC. Increasing my exercise level has not done as much for me as restricting calories.

I am glad I now have an explanation for why I lose so slowly. I am probably eating too much fat from my beef and pork choices and should shift to lower fat protein choices while keeping my ECC below 30 and calories below 1500 since nothing is likely to happen at 1700 calories. Prior to this time I had not been paying much attention to my fat percentage so long as I kept the ECC and calories within my set limits.

Thanks for posting your comments to Dr Mike and his replies. They were helpful.

Gaelen

05-30-2008, 08:02 AM

here's another tangent...
When Stefansson came up, and the language and descriptions of the 1920s, it occurred to me that what was considered 'normal' then (basically, a pretty curvy woman) would nowadays be considered overweight. 'Eating Well' touches on that this month as well, discussing BMI and the problems of using BMI to determine 'obesity' for people who lift weights and are more muscular than the chart assumes.

Perhaps *part* of the issue is that we assume that we look good at a certain weight, based on current prejudices--when in fact, a little heavier is a perfectly appropriate weight.

Just another thing to consider.

Mitra

05-30-2008, 08:55 AM

Gaelen, that was sort of the point that I was trying to make. That people following an all meat diet just as their normal way to eat were healthy, but didn't automatically have the body type or build that is fashionable today. Neither did they necessarily stay the same size & shape at all ages.

As well as our different cultural ideals, it's also possible that a body/metabolism that's been subjected to decades of modern food doesn't react in the same way as one that's always eaten the traditional way. Lutz (Life Without Bread) commented that children pretty reliably returned to a healthy body composition on adopting a low carb diet, but adults didn't always.

Gaelen

05-30-2008, 02:01 PM

Yep, Mitra...and I do think higher acceptable weights and BF%s are things people really don't pursue because of social prejudice.

For instance, the ideal body weight tables in the original PP permitted a higher body fat percentage and ideal BW as women got older than many people aim for--28% BF versus the 20-25% BF that charts from other influences say are healthy. I do wonder how much modern advertising and the runway look and the current prejudices about what constitutes a healthy body have forced that BF% downward to 20-25%. And none of it is helped by studies that show that semi-starvation seemed to promote longer life (and how much press did the discrediting of those studies get, relative to the press about their first results?)

Sometimes, it seems that Western society values thinness above any other attribute. As someone who is always going to be on the high end of the BF%, I've always felt that was a value system that was perhaps a bit misplaced. But I know the mileage will vary.

Gaelen, whose docs keep telling her 'you look GREAT' and 'no weight loss; we're serious!' even though my current weight/LBM is a good way off from the 20-25% BF chart.

laughingW

05-30-2008, 02:32 PM

calorie restriction to 1500.

How did you arrive at a calorie number? In my experience, ALL the formulas for calculating calories were done not with low carb, and few for older women, and even fewer for really high BMIs. So the only thing to trust is our very own experiment, and see at what calorie level we really can lose.

(I saw a critique once of the Harris Benedict calorie equations that could be as much as 30% off for women for example).

One of the low carb docs, the Polish guy for Optimum Diet, uses a proportion of 1:1.5:.5 for protein, fat, and carb grams, based on your height.

For me that works out to 1200 calories at 5'2". Even less if I don't get in all that fat. And it gives all the essential nutrients per Nutridiary, feels wonderful and satisfying. And is "below" the "basal" for most calculators - hooey.

I am not afraid of low calorie if the fear is from studies where low calorie meant inadequate nutrients.

Belfrybat

05-31-2008, 10:10 AM

When I first started PP in 1998-99, I lost 30 lbs. in less than 6 months. That was before I had a computer diet tracking program, so don't know the calories or food composition exactly, but did come across a log I kept at that time. A week's average turned out to be around 1000 calories daily and 30 ECC. That was also before I started snacking on nuts and cheese. I then went the vegetarian route, gained all the weight plus some back. When I jumped back on the PP bandwagon 6 years ago, and joined this and other forums, I read over and over that low carb is not calorie restriction. But I also did not lose weight until I also cut calories. I've been on and off PP the past couple of years as I became discouraged at the very slow weight loss (30 lbs. in 5 years with 25 lbs to go). I realize I'm older and have developed insulin resistance, which all plays a part in the slow weight loss.

When I jumped back on in earnest, I realised I was going to have to cut calories as well as carbs. The calories I cut, however were not in the form of good healthy meats and saturated fat, but the extras -- nuts, cheese, peanut butter. Not completely cut out, but limited to one snack a day rather than grabbing them whenever I felt like it.

The wake up call for me was my experiment with IF -- I realised it wasn't the timing of meals so much as the fact I was eating less. I just don't lose unless I get to 1200 calories or less. I've been criticized on this and other LC boards for stating that "calories do count" on LC, and am so glad to read Dr. Mike discuss this issue. That's not to mean I think everyone should cut calories. I think it's very important not to try to have a one-size-fits-all mentality. I do know some folks who say they can eat 3000 calories and still lose, and I envy them, but as we are all used to stating, YMMV -- and my mileage is definitely in the low calorie as well as low carb camp.

As for those who do not lose weight regardless of cutting carbs and calories, I would say there's something metabolic going on that you have not yet discovered. And Dr. Mike can't address those individual issues in his blog. Perhaps a visit to a bariatric doctor is in order to see why you are not losing weight in spite of restricting carbs and calories below even your BMR. No matter what your WOE, the fact a person can't lose weight when taking in less calories than needed to sustain life makes no sense. I know for me, insulin resistance plays a huge part in my inability to lose weight. There's many other factors to look at as well.

Belfrybat

05-31-2008, 10:26 AM

My understanding was that through this style of eating that your body is enabled to burn fat as it's initial fuel source and that if enough fat is taken in through diet that there is no need for it to use it's bodily fat stores.

I understand the article the same way. But it's not about saturated vs. unsaturated fat or really, fat from meat in general. Dr. Mike speaks specifically about what I call "snacking fat" -- overconsumption of cheese, nuts, and other fatty foods where the calories from fat can add up quickly. There's a real danger of cutting out too much fat, especially in meat, which for many is the mainstay of this WOE.

Vesna

06-02-2008, 08:19 AM

It's not the case that Steffanson was writing in a time when a heavier standard of beauty reigned. Just the opposite.

In fact, this is a notable feature of the apparent popular interest in weight management that can be inferred from some of his writing about his one-year meat experiment.

The 1920s was the height of decades-long trend (1914-1943) during which slender, willowy, boyish figures were the fashion ideal for women. The look was sometimes known as "garconne" -- a feminization of the French for "boy." Women strapped their bosoms, instead of cinching their waists as in years pasts. The fashionable silhouette was a straight, slim line. Lesley Hornby (aka Twiggy) could easily have become a fashion star then as she did in the 1960s when the style began to change again.

The slim body remained the ideal through the 1930s and early 1940s, although long, graceful art-deco curves were emphasized, rather than the angularity favored in the 1920s. Fleshy curves became more popular as the 1940s progressed. In the 1950s and up to the mid-1960s, a bountiful, well-fed appearance was desired. Bustiness was an important part of the look. A smooth layer of fat over the body was cultivated, and little folds of flesh that might appear when seated, for example, in a bikini, were acceptable.

Google "flapper era jazz age" and similar terms -- or tune into TMC (Turner Movie Classics) to see top stars of different eras and you'll see plenty of examples.

maxlharris

06-02-2008, 12:31 PM

And here (in the quote area) is my second comment, which hasn't appeared on Dr. Mike's blog yet.

Does anyone else feel like that post was just a fancy way to say, "You're obviously eating too much -- just eat less"? When you're down to 1200 calories per day, you're obviously not eating too much -- the problem is with your body not burning enough. Yes, you're taking in more than you're burning. But when you're eating little, taking in even less is not going to be the solution.

Realizing that this is a little old and a little discussed and not taking the time to read through the entire discussion, lemme suggest something.

When you say that you're down to 1200 calories per day and not losing, it feels a lot like you are in a static "cal in - cal out = /\ weight" mind frame. Evidence points to cal in - cal out as being dynamic, rather than static. You reduce calories, you reduce the thermic effect of food. You might also, given a reduced level of caloric intake, also reduce output through physical activity, either in exercise form or the more important non-exercise activity form.

The static view of a dynamic equation is why people who diet on a traditional calorie reduction diet tend to have to restrict calories further and further to continue movement of the scale. This seems like a joyless and miserable existence. I suspect that, as you ramp calories down, this is exactly what's going on. You're stepping resting metabolism down. You're probably also stepping metabolic physical activity down as well. In terms of the equation:
Cals In are down
Cals Out are down as well
/\ Weight is remaining stable
All is understood in the world.

I notice in your two comments to Dr. Mike, you have not mentioned anything about activity. That suggests a road to a solution. Some exercise will be better than none. Metabolic activation types of exercises (types of resistance training and interval based cardio) would be better than just any old exercise. But if you're not really doing anything right now, taking the stairs, parking far from the store and taking an evening constitutional might be enough to kick your metabolism over.

As to Jimmy Moore, he could stand to cut back on replacement products like Chocolove bars and diet soda (splenda or other). But, he can't do that and keep his sponsors, so he's probably in a bit of a bind there. The great problem with the LC diet, from a business perspective, is that the best LC products are things like steak, broccoli, barbells and books rather than packaged consumer goods.

maxlharris

06-02-2008, 12:35 PM

I understand the article the same way. But it's not about saturated vs. unsaturated fat or really, fat from meat in general. Dr. Mike speaks specifically about what I call "snacking fat" -- overconsumption of cheese, nuts, and other fatty foods where the calories from fat can add up quickly. There's a real danger of cutting out too much fat, especially in meat, which for many is the mainstay of this WOE.

There is a piece in PP and PPLP about fat types, though. Ideally, there's a good ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6, and a good idea on mono versus poly ratio. I don't recall off the top of my head which should be where, but not eating a lot of veggies in general, my Omega 6 and polyunsats are generally pretty low, percentagewise. I guess there are benefits to being a picky eater.

lczeledoc

06-03-2008, 11:59 AM

Fleshy curves became more popular as the 1940s progressed. In the 1950s and up to the mid-1960s, a bountiful, well-fed appearance was desired. Bustiness was an important part of the look. A smooth layer of fat over the body was cultivated, and little folds of flesh that might appear when seated, for example, in a bikini, were acceptable.

Those were the days my friend!

maxlharris

06-03-2008, 12:26 PM

This seems to be the current standard in the Netherlands. 90% of the Dutch tourists in Curacao wore bikinis. Even folks in the 30+ BMI range. Was interesting.

Ammy

06-03-2008, 04:44 PM

I FINALLY was able to read Dr Mike's blog about low carb and calories.

This was exactly what I discovered about myself!

I can eat 2000-2500 calories a day and not gain...and be stable and fine.

BUT, if I want to lose, I have to consisitantly eat around 1700 calories (plus the obvious low carb). My problem is the "consistantly" part...I do great, start to lose the weight, but fall back to a day (or 5) of higher carbs, which brings me right back up to the top of my weight, then I'm REALLY on plan again, lose weight, eat, gain weight...

I become a human YoYo!! :rolleyes:

lczeledoc

06-03-2008, 05:07 PM

My fat loss journey, after the initial 30 lb drop, has been two step forward --one back. I recently started still losing again, after a long stall. I am losing about 1-2 lb/week. I too find that I can eat as much as I want and not gain--so long as it is <40 ecc/day. But add wine, cheese and fruit and I add back the lbs. I am currently at 235lb from a high of 272lb 16 months ago. The best for me is two square meals a day--no snacks. One a week I fast--from dinner time to dinner time. I find that it helps to reset the fat burning mode after the weekend's often higher carb consumption. I guess I am going to have to suck it up I give up my hedonistic tendencies toward wine & cheese.

Ammy

06-03-2008, 06:41 PM

I guess I am going to have to suck it up Iand give up my hedonistic tendencies toward wine & cheese.

:eek:...NO! NOT THAT!! ARGH!!!!
PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME GIVE UP WINE AND CHEESE ALONG WITH MY ICE CREAM AND PIZZA!!! ARGH!!!:eek:

maxlharris

06-04-2008, 08:43 AM

:eek:...NO! NOT THAT!! ARGH!!!!
PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME GIVE UP WINE AND CHEESE ALONG WITH MY ICE CREAM AND PIZZA!!! ARGH!!!:eek:
That kind of whine is zero carb, zero calorie. Permissible on all diets, though not encouraged.

Ammy

06-04-2008, 09:19 AM

Sure..it's GOOD for me, but I don't WANT it...

Just like plain broccoli...great...thanks...:rolleyes:

LulaZula

06-04-2008, 09:39 AM

What really throws me off about this blog post and the comments that ensued is that I keep getting a mixed message. In reading PP, PPLP, GCBC, I got the idea that *in general*, I don't have to worry most about calories and fat, and that minding my carbs and proteins, as well as exercising (tho not nec. according to GCBC), should get me to the promised land. Then this post about calories and fat restriction, and then in the comments, Dr. Mike suggests to me to follow Elle's high fat/low carb plan. What gives?? I have found that it is hard for me to avoid falling off the wagon when restricting carbs, and I *know* that if I add a calorie and fat restriction on top of that, I will probably fail miserably. This struggle frustrates me to no end. Does this seem like contradictory info to the rest of you or is it just me?
Thanks for 'listening' to my rant,
Lula

Ammy

06-04-2008, 09:46 AM

The calorie restriction, as he wrote in the blog, comes NATURALLY when cutting carbs...however, typically, as a person get closer to their goal weight, or gets bored with the food they were eating to cut carb, we may need to make adjustments.
I am 20lbs from my goal weight (lost and maintained 116lbs gone) and I have REALLY struggled with losing the last 20. I feel my body is telling me I don't NEED as many calories and if I want to lose more weight, I need to add restriction of some calories to my restriction of carbs.
It's not for everyone unless you're just simply not losing, or close to your goal weight.

That's what I got from his blog anyway...

Are you close to your goal? Are you not losing?

And calorie restriction can be VERY simple...reducing cheese if your a big fan (like me), or chosing lower cal cheese. Or maybe instead of having a steak every night, you add more chicken...it can be very simple.

maxlharris

06-04-2008, 11:20 AM

Here's the deal:
1- eating adequate protein, ad lib fat, and limited carb will restrict calories naturally.
2- Above will also dump glycogen stores, and the water bound up, producing some rapid weight loss in the first month.
3- Above will also set one up hormonally to use body fat for fuel.
4- Being set up, hormonally, to use body fat for fuel does not imply that it will happen.
5- Being set up, hormonally, for fat burning will prevent you from adding new fat stores.
6- 5 implies that you can eat and eat and not gain on LC. This is fairly robust, in the macro sense. You might put one or two lbs here and there if you eat 4000 calories a day and keep carbs <30. But you're not gonna gain like you would if you were eating carbs ad lib.
7- 4 implies a certain caloric limit for body fat burning to happen.
8- As you lose weight, your metabolism slows. Breathing, moving, etc, burns fewer calories.
9- #8 implies that as you lose you either need to move more or reduce calories somewhat. It's probably on the margin.
10- A natural tendency of people over time is to relax the tight rules of a diet as their level of comfort goes up. There's also a tendency to game the system.

I would consider excessive nut/cheese consumption to be gaming the system. The same way that eating turkey dogs, no bun, is a way to game weight watchers winning points system. There are foods that round to 0 points. You can eat them unlimited and they don't count (though if you were to solve points for the whole quantity eaten, rather than individual servings, you would get a very different solution).

The winning solution: You must get in touch with your hunger. You must learn the difference between hungry and bored. Between sated and stuffed. I have a hard time with hungry vs bored. I'm working on it. When I have it solved, I will be a lot closer to goal. This is a long term project.

PS: "I *know* that if I add a calorie and fat restriction on top of that, I will probably fail miserably." This is not useful talk.

I hate this, but here it is:
No one plans to fail, but many fail to plan.
If you plan, you can execute. If you execute, you will probably succeed.

LulaZula

06-04-2008, 11:47 AM

Congrats, Ammy, for losing so much weight!

Are you close to your goal? Are you not losing?

I have been working on losing 45 lbs. Re-committed to low carb in earnest end of August (in principle, I've been doing PP since 1997 but with many detours up carb alley over the years). Been working out with a trainer 2 hours a week and doing cardio another 3 hours a week, religiously. Lost 30 lbs in first 7 months, then yo-yo'ed up and down the same 3-4 lbs for about 2 months without really changing anything in my program. I have another 15 lbs to lose, I think.

So I decided to bite my resistance to writing down food stats (I'm just not so good at journaling regularly... free spirit type) and really beared down and ensured I had >30g ECC per day and sufficient protein. I don't tally fat and calories (b/c I find it tedious, and b/c I wasn't under the impression I really needed to). This worked to break my stall - I lost 6.5 lbs in a week on this journaling week. However, the next week, I gained 4 lbs doing precisely the same thing.

I don't eat more than 1-2 oz of cheese per day. I don't eat more than 1 oz nuts per day. I don't eat any sweeteners or packaged LC foods. I don't drink any soda (except club soda at restaurants). I may have 1-2 glasses red wine per month. This is mainly why I don't want to add the stress of tallying calories and fat to my regimen. I don't think I'm eating excessively of either, and while Max says it's my negative talk/thoughts that lead me astray, it is actually my long experience with PP that has shown me that too much journaling has driven me to burn out and falling off the wagon (I have a long history with being successful with PP and then falling off the LC wagon, so I kind of know how I get there...).

The other challenge for me is that with all good intentions, inevitably the same thing happens pretty much every month (tho sometimes every 10 days): I get hijacked by the carb monster in my head, usually late night after a perfect day and when I'm clearly *NOT* hungry, and it's as if I have an out-of-my-mind experience (ala out-of-body, but the opposite). My hand shovels, my mouth eats, and my brain is no-where to be found to stop this sheer stupidity.

So... while the textbook answers are all there, and I know them intellectually as well as the next gal, I am still searching for the in-practice, real-life answers to help me better manage myself and help myself succeed - eliminate or reduce obstacles, create maximum success opportunities. And I also keep in mind how many others report a similar strugle and take that as a data point to support my concern that there is something missing from the formula... This inconsistency b/w low fat and high fat is what's really thrown me for a loop on this one (i.e. Dr. Mike's post and his comment suggestion, seemingly incongruous in my mind).

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

Ammy

06-04-2008, 05:15 PM

you mentioned the nuts and cheese, but what about high caloric meats?
Do you tend to eat red or white or mixed meats?
I know I have to make sure I'm mixing hamburger/steak with chicken/turkey or my calories are too high.

Also...how's the butter and heavy cream usage? They too are very high in calories.

I find I don't HAVE to journal my calories all the time, but I have to look at my total day of food and make decisions. If I'm having eggs and sausage for breakfast (330 cal at LEAST) and hamburger for lunch (350 cal), then supper better be a white meat (150-200 cal).
I don't have to journal to know that...NOW (I did before).

I also think about my butter/mayo/cream usage. These items pack quite a wallop when not looking. Heavy cream, something we can use a lot of since it's "free" in the carb rhelm, is VERY high in calories. So one cup of coffee with one TBSP of heavy cream, no big deal...but if you drink coffee all morning and each cup has a tbsp of heavy cream, well, each tablespoon has 25 calories. So, a pot of coffee...8 cups of coffee (big cups) and you've had 200 calories, but no carbs.

So, it might do you some good to journal for two weeks- marking EVERYTHING including condiments and adders like cream and splenda Eat what you normally eat, then you can see places where you need to think. If you take some time to do that, you shouldn't have to journal forever.

What you describe as your carb monster hijacking you...I know what you're saying cause I do the same thing. They sell cake by the PIECE (it's a BIG piece, more like two) at the grocery store...I'll eat totally on plan all week, then on Saturday I'll have one of these pieces of cake and a big glass of milk...and my weight will be RIGHT back to where I started! This is just fine if I'm at a maintainance weight...but since I have 20 more lbs to lose, it's not working for me...

I'll miss the cake...:(

Ammy

06-04-2008, 05:20 PM

So, did y'all check out Dr Mike's blog (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/caloric-torpedos/#more-1245)today...part 2 of the cal/carb review?

I know EXACTLY what he's talking about!!

My downfall is almonds and dried cherries.
I like to have ONE almond and ONE dried cherry with each bite. So I count out 30 almonds (my typical serving) and 30 dried cherries to match.
30 almonds: 208 calories, 3 ecc
30 dried cherries (roughly 1/4 cup??): 140 calories, 23 ecc

total: 348 cal, 26ecc

for a snack??!! OUCH!!!!

lczeledoc

06-04-2008, 05:53 PM

What I do is melt some butter I toss some almonds, walnuts and dried cherries together---heavenly. Sometimes I'll have some Brie with it. I just discover Pomegrate molasses, made from100% pomegrate. Simply delicious.

maxlharris

06-05-2008, 08:36 AM

Dried fruit is high carb. I read Dr. Mike's piece and really, if you do the label look, you understand that you cannot eat that. Not like it's low carb food. It's simply not. Fresh Cherries are kind of carby to start with. Thd dry process reduces volume without reducing sugar. So, higher carb to the weight and volume. Not a low carb food.

Positive self talk is not the answer for everyone, but negative self talk never works. If you are in the process of making a change, is the past really relevant to your future behavior? Probably not if you want to actually change.

FWIW: pomegranite is higher carb than cherry. I suspect that molasses made from pom is gonna be even higher still. Small doses and maybe large exercise volume pre or post. You're fine on the exercise to have more carbs, LCZ, but most here aren't close.

Last thing: to avoid the late nigh carb monster, in a practical way, don't have carb crap that you can graze on in the house. If you're eating it out, maybe there are strategies you can use to avoid that. Public commitment is a pretty strong tool. Social pressure, teamwork, that kind of thing. If you're eating cake at the grocery, well, I suspect we know how to solve that one too.

laughingW

06-05-2008, 01:57 PM

Then this post about calories and fat restriction, and then in the comments, Dr. Mike suggests to me to follow Elle's high fat/low carb plan. What gives?? I have found that it is hard for me to avoid falling off the wagon when restricting carbs, and I *know* that if I add a calorie and fat restriction on top of that, I will probably fail miserably. This struggle frustrates me to no end. Does this seem like contradictory info to the rest of you or is it just me?
Thanks for 'listening' to my rant,
Lula
I can see why it's confusing. It's an art, really. You have to have enough fat not to fall off the wagon, but not so much fat that you're only burning dietary fat and not stored fat.

Anyone with a small LBM can run into this it seems to me. LBM is what burns fat. So if you're small, or older, or your fat-burner is not working great because of organ issues (thyroid, liver), then the ability to burn any fat is just small too. And the average-size portion of meat or carbs will have a bigger insulin effect on a small lbm than a large one.

As I understand Dr. Mike, keep your protein and carbs at minimum, to keep insulin low. Then add just enough fat so you don't have hunger or cravings.

Personally I'm in that situation and I do better with full-fat meats and eggs. If I do the boneless skinless chicken breast thing, or even tuna, without enough animal sat fat, forget it.

laughingW

06-05-2008, 02:05 PM

The other challenge for me is that with all good intentions, inevitably the same thing happens pretty much every month (tho sometimes every 10 days): I get hijacked by the carb monster in my head, usually late night after a perfect day and when I'm clearly *NOT* hungry, and it's as if I have an out-of-my-mind experience (ala out-of-body, but the opposite). My hand shovels, my mouth eats, and my brain is no-where to be found to stop this sheer stupidity.
It is not stupidity and it's not about "helpful thoughts." That is brain chemistry driving behavior. (did you read GCBC about that? )

If you were logging your exercise and food you might see some patterns around those big craving days. Or it could be hormonal - women have a drop in endorphins and serotonin a week before menses, maybe you have another one at ovulation.

Have you read about dopamine/endorphin cycles? Your body is trying to balance things - reach homeostasis - in the neurotransmitters as opposed to blood sugar arena.

The confusing part is food affects both.

lczeledoc

06-05-2008, 02:23 PM

Dried fruit is high carb.

Positive self talk is not the answer for everyone, but negative self talk never works. If you are in the process of making a change, is the past really relevant to your future behavior? Probably not if you want to actually change.

FWIW: pomegranite is higher carb than cherry. I suspect that molasses made from pom is gonna be even higher still. Small doses and maybe large exercise volume pre or post. You're fine on the exercise to have more carbs, LCZ, but most here aren't close.
.

YEap Dried fruti is the worst way to eat fruit, very concentrated fructose & glucose. But is so good! especially with cheese. I usually eat the dried fruit after I have done my glycogen depleting exercise. But I am eating much less now. I am making a committment to go all out and drop the last 25-30lbs. I want to see abs--damn it! The pomegranete molasses it is surprisingly not as carby, 9 g per tbsp. Max, you have it right about positive self-talk. It is a must if one wishes to transform one's life. The past is only there to be put behind.

LulaZula

06-05-2008, 03:58 PM

It is not stupidity and it's not about "helpful thoughts." That is brain chemistry driving behavior. (did you read GCBC about that? )

If you were logging your exercise and food you might see some patterns around those big craving days. Or it could be hormonal - women have a drop in endorphins and serotonin a week before menses, maybe you have another one at ovulation.

Have you read about dopamine/endorphin cycles? Your body is trying to balance things - reach homeostasis - in the neurotransmitters as opposed to blood sugar arena.

Thanks, LaughingW. I have noticed that there seems to be a hormonal link. I guess I need to do some more reading - and please share any secrets about that (and we can take it into a new thread, if that would hijack this one). Thanks for your support. It is very frustrating to feel irrational and out-of-control like that.:(