Kcals vs carbs????

I think carb watching is the most important thing.. although too many calories wont be exactly waist friendly.
The more carbs you eat, the more insulin you need .. either your own or via a needle. The more insulin circulating, the more fat will be laid down, so the more you will weigh.

When I started lower carbing I was also counting weightwatchers points.....not quite the same but similar and it was doing my head in. In the end I settled for the odd day of kcal counting and WW pointing just to check on what I was doing.
I eat roughly 70g carb a day. I want to continue to lose weight (5/6 stone to go)and keep my cholesterol at it's new low. I tend to go for reduced fat cheese instead of the full fat kind automatically though. I lose 1lb a week on average.
I'm not insulin dependant.I'm T2 on metformin SR 500X2 a day.
PS I thought my carbing had gone bonkers earlier on. BS 12.3 eek. Re-washed hands did it again and it was 6.6 +2 hrs which is not bad for me. Whew! Must learn not to handle tablets and test at the same time.!!!

Counting carbs is paramount when diabetic so this in my view is more important than counting calories, that said consuming too many calories will eventually lead to weight gain so I do watch my calorie intake occasionally but keep a closer eye on the carbs.

Nigel

That would depend on your beliefs. If you think that high carbs are the cause of all obesity, then obviously limiting carbs is necessary and sufficient for weight loss. [e.g. Paleo, Diabetes Solution, etc]

On the other hand, if you do not believe the above then counting carbs and calories are done for very different reasons: Carbohydrates are limited to get reasonable BG control, which is neither necessary nor sufficient for weight loss.
Limiting total energy intake may lead to weight loss if you are lucky (again, depending on who you believe. EU.L.E.makes a compelling argument for weight loss through diet and exercise being effectively impossible)

I think in practice, a low-carb diet is almost always a low-calorie diet, unless you are careful to compensate with lots of fat (which most of us have been brain-washed not to do).

It's also very difficult to "snack" when you are trying to restrict your carb intake, it's a enough of a struggle to find interesting things to eat for main meals, without having to worry about low-carb snack foods too. There is only so much meat you can eat in a day.

Although i need to lose more weight, i mainly focus on the carb content rather than the cals, although i do try to keep the cals lowish as well.

I've found the carbs and cal book really helpful in this respect.

First book on this link.

http://www.carbsandcals.com/Book.aspx

CONTROVERSY ALERT!!!

I do not believe in calories.

I CANNOT believe that 100 calories is 100 calories no matter what source it comes from. I'm absolutely positive that the human body extracts more energy from 100 "Calories" worth of Lamb Chops (for arguments sake) than it does from 100 "calories" worth of bread...

Calories are calculated by burning food in a controlled environment. My problem with this is, the human body is NOT a controlled environment.

Hormones (among other things) mean that an individuals system can be in a multitude of states - and the belief that the state of this system has NO EFFECT on how calories are extracted bafles me...

Don't count calories - cound grams of sugar/carbs.

I agree with the ,it's hard to find the low carb snacks..but also eating low carb I do find I just don't have the need to snack, I'm full all the time, on the odd occasion I have had to force my self to eat at meal times. But I do .

I am eating way more calories now on a Paleo type diet, than I was when carbs made up a big chunk of my daily calories, and I watched the fat. I have lost weight and am the leanest I have been for years, leaner than when I lost a lot of weight and was on a extreme calorie restricted diet.

So I never feel the gnawing hunger you get on a calorie restricted diet because I eat a higher volume of foods, and more variety now. I have found I do need to eat the lower carb treats daily, a lot of the ones WJ has posted, ie the cakes ect, to keep my weight up now....but I do see that as a plus :wink:

Eating more cake and getting leaner, woo hoo!

I started my first diet about 50 years ago, and I've tried just about everything - Weightwatchers, Slimming Club, Mayo Clinic, calorie-controlled, high carb/low fat with calorie control, etc, etc. I've even tried exercise :shock: :lol: !

Nothing has ever worked as well for me as the Atkins low-carb diet. The first time I tried it I ate Atkins but also counted the calories for the first 4 weeks, and my daily calorie intake was between 1400 and 2200 per day. In that 4 weeks I lost 21lbs; I know that if I'd eaten that many calories on a carby diet, I would hardly have lost anything at all.

Like Patch, I do not totally believe the "energy in must equal energy out" theory, though it's not a case I can argue. I think there are a lot of unknowns yet about human metabolism; we are all different. I know at least one person that the Atkins diet doesn't suit at all; she lost 3lbs in the first two weeks, yet she assures me she didn't cheat. It's a matter of finding out what suits you.

I don't count calories any more, I just try to limit my carbs. Over the winter I'll probably be eating more than my 25g - 30g per day summer target, for comfort :wink: and to keep warm.

A 10-ounce baked potato has 250 calories; that's a lot of potato. No wonder I put weight on when eating a high-carb 1200cal diet!

Diabetes has been so good for me. I don't really care about my weight any more, I'm just eating to keep my BGs under control, which for me means low-carb. It's just an extra benefit that I lose weight as well . I am so glad I found Atkins before diabetes found me, so I knew what to do. :lol:

Viv 8)

I would say that Kcals are just as important as carbs when it comes to losing weight its no good cutting out the carbs and then stuffing your face with cheese and cream you will never lose weight, which is why I suspect so many low carbers seem unable to lose weight.

Everything in MODERATION is my mantra both for bg control and weight loss, and if more proof is needed have you seen the new Ruth Jones? She has lost 4 1/2 stones thats 63lbs by calorie counting :thumbup:

Its goodbye Nessa



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... ds-newsxml

Thing is whatever you do it has to be sustainable for the long haul.

I think whatever diet someone starts they will initially lose weight just by THINKING about what they are putting in their mouths. Let alone if you restrict calories, but when does calorie restriction stop. I suppose it depends how thin you want to be...if you want to be thin ,it get harder and more restrictive as you get older.

But as Viv has said, I agree that Atkins for initial weight loss is fantastic ,well it was for me,but if you follow the higher fat, protein ,lower carb approach ,you can eat a lot more calories than a proportioned, carbohydrate dominated diet, that is calorie controlled ..and they just ain't fun for anyone long term.

I'd like to see Ruth Jones in two years time, I wonder how much further she will have had to reduce her calorie intake to maintain what she has lost...or possibly even make more gains if she feels she needs to, I would think a fair amount...but then again, I'm surmising and can only go on my own experience of weight loss and maintaining it.

Horses for courses, and whatever works for any individual does it really matter so long as its a long term thing that makes them happy. And is sustainable...because yo- yoing to me ,takes it toll on the body more than being a constant weight.

I love to see pics like this, she looks fab and must feel great...Well done Ruth!!

Sid Bonkers said:

Click to expand...

I kind of liked her the way she was.