momma6224's Journal, 20 April 2018

Thanks smilesong! I’ve seen a few of their videos—very interesting! Common sense keto doesn’t recommend intermittent fasting but I have done a little and it does seem to work. I just think it comes back to low calories...some people don’t eat enough when they are fasting but my understanding is you should still eat all of your calories for the day just in a smaller window of time?? 

I haven't any scientific facts to add, only personal experience. With that said, I also have to add that I have Fibromylgia, so I have to consider that when trying to get healthy. I started eating keto in October of 2017. Not strict, but still following a keto woe for about 5 months. My weight stalled and I was feeling really run down. I had lost 22 lbs, but feeling horrible. Even with the Fibromylgia, I knew this was different. I do have to say that while on keto, my pain completely went away. About this time I started gaining weight. I reached out to DEADPOOL12345, or visa versa and he told me I was basically starving myself or at least my body thought it was starving and holding on to fat. I wasn't eating enough or getting enough nutrients. Ugh, sorry for such a long post. So, now I am eating more, following the calorie and macro numbers that DEADPOOL and FS suggest with some adjustments.  

Had to continue my post. I don't think that keto was bad for me, I just didn't do it correctly. I'm now eating lean meat, lots of vegetables, no sugar and limited grains if any at all. I will use some keto recipes when I want muffins or bread. That's my experience and as others have stated, do what works for you, adjusting as need be. Good luck. 😊  

both times i've been successful at losing and then maintaining longer term have involved an actual registered nutritionist, not always a doctor. for me, it's not just the weighing in, it's the looking at what to do when i've stalled and applying mini strategies to keep the scale moving. you'll notice that on my posts, i grab info from time to time, but it's places like the mayo clinic or JAMA. there's a ton of info out there, but so much of it is derivative and not always entirely on point. i could lose more weight more quickly if i followed the "four legged raw food paleo diet" meaning i could only eat what i catch, but it's not necessarily good science and it may not be sustainable long term. yes, you hear me moan and groan about a slow loss, but hey, it also took me 22 years to gain the weight back and most of it was in the last two years with a significant life event that landed me in a prolonged depression. it's frustrating, but slowly is better and radical is generally not sustainable. there's a good but disturbing article out there on what's happened to all the contestants on "the biggest loser" years after the show, and it's not pretty. they are experiencing exactly what you're fearing - they've negatively affected their metabolism and are permanently stuck with eating way less than the rest of us to the point that some are forced into taking supplements for life because they can't eat enough without a gain. those are the lucky ones, the others have or are gaining significant weight back. the point of all this, steady wins the race, radical is hard to sustain, you can pretty much find someone to support any theory you want on the internet. stick with science based diets. you can lose a lot of weight eating calorie free. but you're not going to live a long, quality filled life. (that last one was a joke, of sorts) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/health/biggest-losers-weight-loss.html Source study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.21538  

Thanks Becc@ and Katsolo! I appreciate your insight 

@Jimmy Fries, I wasn't trying to, "get you". It's ok to have an opinion, but make the effort to have an informed opinion. There's no such thing as starvation mode, it's a dietary myth, there's what I call, "starvation psychology", but that's totally different from the perpetrated myth that a person's body somehow flips a switch that refused to, "let go of fat". That lives in the same universe as Unicorns and The Lochness Monster.  

I found this extremely interesting and thank you very much for posting this. I am not on Facebook but I will try, out of curiosity to see the suggested macros. I can now and understand why people would lose their hair, it all makes sense. Basically eating maintenance calories works perfectly for me when I try to lose weight therefore, I agree 100%. As an example I found myself May 2017 with more weight than I could ever imagine. I studied, worked and ate more than I had eaten normally. One extra wrap with peanut butter and little exercise for a 7 month period. In May I cut out the extra wrap and exercised and all the weight came off. I was not counting calories but I knew what was extra or what I needed to do. To gain weight we usually start eating more and exercising less. Anyone who eats an extra 1000 calories per day and then decides to remove it actually goes in a calorie deficit for the weight that they are at that time. My maintenance calories are in the 1300 and my workout calories brings me to 1400 and something depending sometimes higher. I eat my workout calories. It would make perfect sense to me that people eat their maintenance calories and then would never have to worry once they reach their goal. The only problem is finding the correct amount since this site is way too high for me and probably others. In the end, whatever works for people, whatever they want to do, I respect all of it and only wish them success.  

This is tough topic, because whenever I see the claims in groups like this I always want to say, "You're not wrong, but you're not right either." They tend to take soundbites they heard somewhere that were true in that particular context, and without knowing the underlying context that made it true in that particular situation, then try to apply it with a broad brush to situations in which it's no longer true. I always question claims like, "your metabolism will slow down" from dieting, because quite frankly, it's supposed to. Your body at 150 pounds is simply not going to require as much energy to move and perform its basic functions as it did at 250, so it reduces it's basal metabolic rate accordingly. This isn't "bad". It isn't "damaged", but combined with the slowing down that comes with aging (which is hormone related, but can't really be reversed without pharmaceuticals and hardly even then), it can be surprising as it happens. And goodness knows we'd all love to eat like we did when we were teens and never gained a pound, but those days are behind us. I take issue with the "study" done on the biggest loser contestants because 1 - the sample size was way too small to be statistically significant, and they admit there were wide variances among even that small sample, and 2 - we don't know if these people had slower than average metabolisms before they began the biggest loser which could have contributed to their significant obesity in the first place. I personally won't put much stock in it until they can recreate these findings in a larger sample and also account for starting metabolic rates and have a true control group. Part of the reason keto works without counting calories is because grains and sugars are naturally more calorie dense than other foods. By cutting those out, you're automatically restricting yourself to lower calorie foods which are higher in fiber and naturally give a better feeling of satiety. That being said, you don't want to go too low or starvation response kicks in. But frankly, if you're good on your keto and not cheating with calorie dense grains and sugars, you really don't have much calorie counting to do. The people I see having issues are the ones who do great on their keto all day, but then end up bingeing on carbs and quickly consume an extra 1,000 calories and still want to blame their shitty metabolisms for the weight gain (and I say this having been one of those people). 

I joined the facebook group just to read the, "pinned post". I'm sure I could get into some interesting disagreements there, but to keep it positive, they are absolutely 100% dead on when they say that exogenous ketones are garbage.  

I honestly feel what ever diet works for the individual and it has healthy benefits it the perfect diet. We're all like snow flakes. Everyone is different :) I just started a 14 day plan that is basically Keto plan. My goal is to go from 160 to 130. I stared Monday. I'll post results. So far it's easy for me to stick to and I do have a lot more energy.  

Thanks Charlotte, Phil, toumina and katmoore! I find the discussion interesting and appreciate everyone’s insight. Charlotte—for me the suggested macros are up to 20g total carbs, 50g protein, 169g fat 1800 cals maintenance exercising 3x week. I’m 41, 135lbs. 5’5”. They suggest no woman eat below 1800 cals with their plan. I haven’t done this...I’m usually about 1350cals, 20-30carb, 60-80 protein and 110-130 fat?? I’ve lost 22+ since January but it has slowed down the last month or so. 

I do a strict Keto diet. 20g total carbs or less a day (5%), carbs from veggies, 50-75g proteins(15-20%), and fats all consist of healthy fats like wild salmon, pecans, olive and avocado oils, avocados, certain seeds (75%). I always seem to fall around 1400-1500 calories a day, I don't ret to restrict that much. I'm full every time I eat and mainly my restrictions are to not eat between meals, so no snacks. I feel better than I have in years, lost 40 pounds without struggling, reversed some health issues, reduced nflammation in my body and done away with all my bloating and gut issues. So for me and my body, this has been a great WOE! I won't stop  

Momma6224, I did realise after that those were Keto macros. I did think about it at one point. It sounds exciting when you first come on the site and I spend quite some time trying to figure out how to do it. I can't. As far as not going lower than 1800 I would think that it cannot apply for a short person with maybe a small build. I know that it would not work for me.  

Awesome iennifer! Thanks for the input. Charlotte, it’s not for everyone (I’m not doing it this way right now either!) just another viewpoint to consider 

I was doing the Keto diet and ended up not swing too much results so I decided to go Gluten free instead and watched my carb intake and saw better results.I have a food allergy that causes rashes NF I have tried eliminating food groups over the last few years just never wanted to give up bread.well I have lost almost 35 lbs since Jan doing it this way and it's not really all that hard.You need a certain amount of gluten daily for your eyes etc so I just have been limiting it in ways where I also see the reduction in carb intake at the same time.Its worth a try 

Interesting maccar!! Thanks for the input 

Still confused, but it all sounds great. I'm searching for a diet that will help control my diabetes and lose weight at the same time.  

Good luck crockett! Thank you Glen! That is excellent advice I will definitely follow🙂 

I like Dr. Berg and his videos. 

I think that the statement is problematic. Lack of calories does not cause your hair to fall out or your metabolism "to crash" (whatever that means). Lack of nutrients might make your hair fall out, but that's different. (For example, I've heard of some vegans suffering from this, but even there I don't think it's a calorie issue, but a nutrient one). When you don't eat enough calories, you body burns glycogen stores, and then fat with some muscle, and it's only when the fat stores are gone that muscle really gets depleted. None of this is a problem. Consider that people fast (for days and weeks) to "get healthy," lose weight, cure depression, fight cancer, endure chemo, overcome liver disease, overcome metabolic syndrome etc, all with many benefits and no adverse effects. Is weight loss hormonal? If your insulin levels are high you will store fat, and if they are low you will burn fat so yes. Btw, if anybody has it, I'd like to see documentation about "crashing" your metabolism. Finally, one of the factors influencing your resting metabolic rate is the amount of muscle you have. (And IMHO, I don't think most people understand the role that muscle plays in health. All things being equal, the person that has more muscle is healthier.) As we age we begin to experience greater sarcopenia (age related muscle loss). You want to avoid this at all costs (again muscle is health). And you can by stimulating the muscles to grow (muscle hypertrophy). The only way known to build muscle is by driving your muscles to fatigue, and the deeper the better. One way to do that is by lifting weights. One to two days a week is all that's necessary to see remarkable results. Typical aerobics (long jogs, etc) doesn't do that. So, as long as you're stimulating your muscles, driving them into deep fatigue, you shouldn't have to worry about harming your metabolism. Anyway, I hope this isn't too far off topic. Good luck!