June 8th, 2011, 05:34 AM
Calorie Counting VS. Low Carb Diet
From what I've read, low calorie diets are better in the long run, but low carb diets take the weight off faster. For an impatient dieter, what is the best option?
Also, when following a low calorie diet, can you eat whatever you want within your calorie allowance? Meaning if I wanted a starbucks coffee and say those were my last 300 calories of the day before I reached 1200, could I have it and still lose weight?
June 8th, 2011, 05:43 AM
I can't answer the first question, but I think it's a bad attitude to take because you won't form habits that will keep the weight off. It's my understanding that any diet that works works on the basis of calories in any case (if you eat 2000 calories of protein versus 2000 calories of carbs and you need 2500 to maintain weight, you'll lose weight either way)
On the second question, in theory, yes, you can eat whatever you want and if you're in a suitable deficit you'll lose weight. There's a guy out there who lost weight on a Twinkie diet. (Completely not recommended for nutrition reasons) I eat chocolate on my diet, and I'm losing weight towards the high end of healthy weight loss (8kg/ 17.64lb in 2 months- I'll also note that my diet is packed full of carbs). I could eat other things but most "bad" food is high calorie density and I don't like being hungry (and I'm personally doing this for my health and wellbeing, so have no desire to mess that up by risking malnourishment with a lot of empty calories).
June 9th, 2011, 06:21 AM
technically, if you burn more calories than you consume, youll lose weight regardless of where those calories come from but remember....there are thin people who are extremely out of shape and unhealthy also.
June 9th, 2011, 06:37 AM
counting calories is a real pain in the a** (in my opinion) ... I chose to go low-carb, because I could stock my house with foods that fit into that particular dietary scheme, and then chose from those foods... maybe I am an idiot, but it made the day a lot more simplified when I only had to worry about eating a few different foods. When I went to a restaurant, instead of dwelling over the whole menu, I knew what I couldn't eat right away... like I said, maybe I have a simple mind, but I found it easier to adhere to low-carb... I also tried low-cal, and I hated it... I just got sick of adding all those freakin' calories up.. and people that don't actually count, tend to lie to themselves (they keep track in their head). It's reall a preference, try em' both.
June 9th, 2011, 07:12 AM
All calories are not created equal... There is a reason why every person on earth whos job is to be at a low body fat % uses carb cyclying and low carb diets to lose body fat...
Weight != fat.
If you're looking at losing fat, look into managing your carbs properly. if you want to lose weight, low calorie of any macro breakdown works fine.
June 10th, 2011, 07:11 PM
A combination of the Rotation (Calories counting) and the T Factor (Fat Gram Counting) is working for me. Lost 35 lbs. in about 6 weeks.
June 11th, 2011, 12:55 PM
I just don't think the theory of just having 2000 Calories each day works for everyone. Each individuals have different metabolism and effect of diet. Maybe it is best to just do whatever you know about diet, try several types of diet and just see what method works for you the best. I think it is the only way to actually lose some weight.
June 12th, 2011, 03:11 AM
I have done both. I lost weight faster doing low-carb. I like calorie counting better because I eat whatever I like, as long as it's counted in my calories. I still try to stay away from white bread and sugar. It's possible to do both at the same time too. There are websites with recipes that count the carbs and calories.
Last edited by Jessica086; June 12th, 2011 at 03:11 AM.
Reason: Period key is messing up on me!
June 12th, 2011, 04:16 PM
I've tried low carb more times than I can count. I only managed to stay on it for more than 2 weeks once. I find it way too restrictive personally. I would rather count calories and be able to widely from all the food groups than stick to the same food all the time.
I do think there is something in the arguements for low carb though and I sort of wish I could stick to the diet because it can show great results. I think it's about what works for you.
To answer your questions: you do lose faster on low carb, generally, but that is mostly because in the beginning you lose a lot of water weight and the weight of your glycogen stores in your liver (that's the place we store sugars when we're not using them, if you low carb you will get rid of those stores). And yes if you're calorie counting in theory you can eat whatever you want so long as you stay within your limit for the day/week. HOWEVER, it's much more difficult to stick to your limits if all you've eaten all day is junk
Last edited by Holly88; June 12th, 2011 at 04:18 PM.
June 12th, 2011, 08:53 PM
Low carb is a good way to slim down fast yes, but calorie counting work just as well.
I tried low carb but within a few days I felt so so sick, my sister forced me to eat some bread and I felt much better after only 15 minutes.
So keep in mind keto diets are not for everyone.
It really does work, so I'm not knocking it, but I'm not quite sure if it's very healthy though.
Calorie counting doesn't restrict you too much, except for obviously calories, other than that you can eat pretty much whatever you want.
You are also less likely to feel lethargic, faint, light-headed, nauseated than on a low carb diet.
You can even lose weight while eating carbs, but it's all up to you.
For me, diets that don't exclude certain foods or food-groups work best and deprivation sometimes leaves me lusting for the foods I can't have and after a while the urge gets so strong I give in and ultimately fail.
June 14th, 2011, 01:17 AM
"Low calorie" diets are not a one size fits all thing. You have to figure out how much calories you need to maintain weight and then go from there. Taking in 1200 calories a day when you need 2200 to maintain weight is not a good thing. You're better off taking in 1700-1800 calories. If you need 3000 to maintain weight (maybe you're extremely active), then you're better off consuming 2500 calories a day at first.
Calorie counting is good, but people get bored of it. The idea behind it is to get a food scale that you can use at the start, and then soon enough, you'll know how many calories most of the food you eat is, and then you don't have to worry too much about how many calories each thing you're eating is because you already know.
There are many forms of low-carb diets. Some of them are ketogenic while others are not, and different people react to them differently (Ketogenic diets don't work well if you're not consuming ample amounts of fat).
For myself, I do well with carb-limited diets. I avoid bread, grains, rice, and sugar. My carb intake is mostly from fruits, or vegetables (which are very low in calories).
Even then, the majority of my carb intake happens peri-workout. Every now and then, I cheat a bit.
By fatbeforethin in forum The Club
Last Post: July 26th, 2010, 07:17 AM
By Women-over-30 in forum On Topic
Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 11:05 PM
By MsRobb88 in forum Nutrition
Last Post: February 21st, 2009, 10:32 PM
By Pinch in forum Nutrition
Last Post: November 10th, 2006, 09:28 AM
By Like2walk in forum Nutrition
Last Post: January 25th, 2005, 06:30 PM
Top Poster: maleficent