But yours is hiddenIt's not a hard thing to find.
Everyone's life history is on here somewhere.
All you need to do is have a quick look.

But yours is hiddenIt's not a hard thing to find.
Everyone's life history is on here somewhere.
All you need to do is have a quick look.
But yours is hidden![]()
The op hasn't said they feel particularly hungry.
Both low BG, and weight loss are normally possible.
Has your method got you down to your target weight?
I agree, I guess the point I was trying to make is to focus on the BG, the weight loss will naturally follow, stop stressing about it and don't set deadlines.
She has mentioned snacks when hungry.
My target weight is a movable feast, in that it never goes up, but it seems to gradually drift down - I keep thinking I am happy at my current weight, then I lose a bit more. I have lost in excess of 40lbs, and kept it off for 5 years. I am currently about 4 lbs over a so called 'normal' BMI (yes, I was once 'obese' now merely low end of 'overweight'). And I lose about 3lb a year, but totally happy with that, and if I plateau at this weight, I'm happy with that too, according to the most recent research, the individuals with the greatest life expectancy are in the 'overweight' category. I can still 'choose to lose' sticking to strictly 20g carbs and no alcohol - but I average about 30g and have a couple of red wines a day - sometimes a little more.
I only test bg now once a week, random times as I am actually doing finger stick for blood clotting and I bleed like a pig so may as well check bg at same time and it is never more than 6, sometimes much less and sometimes ketones up to 4 - all good.
Anything else you'd like to know?
And what works for you today may not work tomorrow. I did calorie restriction for a long time then it stopped working, now my weight loss on LCHF has stalled. I don't put any on which is wonderful, but I don't lose any either. My son is getting married soon and the desire to look a little less fat in the photos has driven me to change what I'm doing again. So I started to try an 800 cal diet. Well that we so easy when I was younger. Not so now! I'm not managing to keep to that limit yet, but I will once I get my head around calorie counting again instead of carb counting. The thing is I'm beginning to wonder if calorie restriction is hard for a particular person to achieve, then maybe it's more worthwhile for them too? I have lost a little weight even though I'm not hitting my calorie targets yet.That's the thing though, as you say, that seems to work for you, personally, at a slow pace that suit you.
If you do read the comments of others, calorie restriction is the only way that works for them, otherwise calorie creep, (and fats are more caloric) comes in. With lchf, more isn't always less for everyone.
And sometimes it's easier to simply bite the bullet, and reduce the calories, and go for a perceivable weight loss.
This point you make applies equally to both 'types' of diet you describe This forum discusses many 'types' of diet that many report success with, and equally many that complain of failures. Some calorie count, some carb count. Either approach works for weight loss. Either approach works for weight gain too, Where the two types of approach differ is in bgl control. The new LC diets do seem to offer a tweakable control mechanism for bgl reduction, but calorie counting allows high carb intake which is proving detrimental for diabetics.and others, who won't feel full, and will continue to keep eating, regardless, and need to 'manually' stop eating by keeping a check on intake.
Whilst it appears that gradual weight loss seems to be a more preferred approach to reduce yo-yo dieting, in this case the OP is seeking advice on a more drastic approach. The OP appears to be both calorie restricting, and using an LC approach. The resultant seems to be not workingI particularly like this forum because it focuses on diet adjustment to promote healthy outcomes, rather than, "I have to lose a stone in a fortnight". Dietary changes for us or for the long term, for nearly all individuals (with a very few exceptions that are profoundly metabolic resistant) in the long term LCHF will produce the desired result of bg lowering and weight loss, provided the carb restriction is low enough.
I think for a lot of people food represents more than just the fuel they need to take on board at the given moment they are eating. My dad, for example, grew up in poverty with an unmarried mother who didn't earn enough to feed them properly. His attitude to food was unhealthy for most of his life and in certain circumstances (like when we ate out, particularly in a table buffet sharing setting) I could watch his state clearly changing - irrational fears surfacing. It was only when he was diagnosed diabetic, in his late 60's, that he reigned in his habits.There are definitely two types at least, those that naturally stop eating, ie those that claim they never count calories but always seem to eat very little, feeling 'full' on fat, and so become naturally calorie deficient, and others, who won't feel full, and will continue to keep eating, regardless, and need to 'manually' stop eating by keeping a check on intake.
Whilst it appears that gradual weight loss seems to be a more preferred approach to reduce yo-yo dieting, in this case the OP is seeking advice on a more drastic approach. The OP appears to be both calorie restricting, and using an LC approach. The resultant seems to be not working
Whichever 'type' of diet control is applied. IMO the OP should make a direct choice since this mixture is clouding the waters.
Either restrict calories, or carbs. If LC is chosen, then a fast weight loss needs to be less than 50g carbs a day, moderate protein, and medium fat, so the current menu needs reduction. If calorie control, then its the fats and carbs that need to drop drastically.
Actually, the OP has decided to stop the LCHF and move to a different diet. My point is that there are many diets around that limit calories, and these allow carbs to be included (aka South Beach). My experience is that as a diabetic I find carb restriction is working for me, so would not choose a calorie limited diet myself. However, if you try to apply both carb limit AND calorie limit, then things can get muddled unecessarily, so my advice was to choose one or the other, because it seems either has viability.No reason to eat carbs, particularly if the op wants to control BG.
It makes far more sense to limit the carbs to a level which ensures good BG control, then eat fats and limited protein, but count the calories to ensure your own personal limit isn't breached.
There is absolutely no reason why LCHF has to be an unlimited feast, with a bit of common sense both weight loss, and BG control can be achieved.
Actually, the OP has decided to stop the LCHF and move to a different diet. My point is that there are many diets around that limit calories, and these allow carbs to be included (aka South Beach). My experience is that as a diabetic I find carb restriction is working for me, so would not choose a calorie limited diet myself. However, if you try to apply both carb limit AND calorie limit, then things can get muddled unecessarily, so my advice was to choose one or the other, because it seems either has viability.
BTW, I have not seen anywhere a recommendation that LCHF is 'unlimited', If you went on the LCHF course here, there was a section on portion control, just like any diet. I found that a ham salad is ok except if I overdo the ham portion, Proved this on several occasions, so now my 'good recipes' list carries a warning for me, As regards fat I am still using less fat that I did when I was younger, but more than I was advised to use until recently on the 'low fat' approach. I switched from marge to butter about 10 years ago, so it is not a fad for me. I only use bulletproof coffee when have a need to put on weight and I have only just bought my first jar of coconut oil. for yam fries. I find nuts have too many carbs for me, so use Babybels as occasional snacks instead of pigging out on crisps like I used to 6 months ago.
Thanks you're right Kristin it is confusing. I have studied Dukan more and it depends which one you follow as to how restrictive it is. I had no idea that protein can also raise bg I have bought the oat bran and with egg whites I am hoping it will be ok but will test over a few days as my bg is still up and down between 7.5 and 9.5 over the day. I am going to cut out really high fat for now and see if it makes a difference to weight loss. I am not sure I am comfortable with just protein. I can see it might work for some for weight loss but I can't honestly see how salad and low carb veg can cause weight gain, also from a nutritional point of view it's more balanced. Also if protein can make bg go up then it will be useless approach. I think I will try the oat bran because at 7g carb per portion in galette if it doesn't spike my bg it will be a good breakfast alternative to scrambled egg. Fingers crossed!Debbie,
Just a wor of warning. Some of us need to moderate our protein or it raises BS.
Just a sensible diet with controlled portions. I small salad with a few oz protein and a drizzle Evoo sea salt and hubs is a great lunch or dinner or both. I use lettuce wraps too. Same food just looks different. Nuts chees and all grains CAN be eliminated. Keeping carbs low as well. Good luck. I think Dukan is decent but perhaps unlimited protein doesn't work for diabetics and very low fat either. As stated different fats act different. Maybe stick with avocado and olive oil for now.
Good luck. It is all confusing and you will find your balance
Yes.