I'm glad you mentioned this because I actually did it. For about 3 weeks or so I upped my calorie intake to about 1500 calories a day. I added more lean protien, veggies and fruits to my diet thinking that maybe my metabolism was so wonky that if I actually ate more, healthier foods that my body and metabolism would adjust itself and I would start losing weight.

I managed to gain 8 pounds. So frustrating!

I'm no doctor, but if that's the case then I'd be pushing for a referral to a specialist or another doctor who can help you figure out what's going on. At your height and weight you shouldn't be gaining weight on 1500 calories per day (in theory). There's something else at play and you need to see someone who can help you figure out what and where to go from here.

I agree with that assessment (although I'm also not a doctor).

I'm at 209 pounds and just over 5'2"; I only do half an hour of exercise per day most of the time. I have a hypoactive thyroid and am in the "low normal" range of thyroid function with a levothyroxine prescription. I'm 41 years old, too, so the deck's stacked against me a little bit when it comes to weight loss--but I'm losing fairly steadily (albeit slowly) at 1500 calories a day. If you are truly gaining on that much, you really do need to search for a medical answer.

I hate to ask this because I don't want it to sound judgmental, but I think it's important to eliminate the possibility: you're measuring, but are you weighing your portions? Is it possible that you're measuring with a systematic error in place? For example, if you're measuring heaping cups or rounded cups, you're consistently getting more calories than if you measure level cups. I used to do this the last time I tried portion control and when it didn't work, I found it was because I was overloading my scoops. It's why I went to weighing my portions.

Even if you were overestimating slightly, though, there should still be a pretty major calorie deficit working in your favor. 1500 calories is not a lot for someone your height. Please continue to work with your doctor or see a specialist; it pretty much defies the laws of physics to gain weight while taking in fewer calories than your BMR unless there's something out of whack.

I've been morbidly obese most of my life. When I was younger, I couldn't blame metabolism. I had a great metabolism, a metabolism so great that I could lose up to 11 or 12 lbs the first week on a diet, and 5-7 lbs regularly.

I can't do that anymore. Now, I'm lucky to get 2 lbs per month.

I don't have PCOS, but do have insulin resistance. My doctor suggested that low-carb tends to work better for patients with IR than other dieting methods, and while I was skeptical I did eventually give it a try.

I read a lot too, and was very skeptical of the claim that you could eat more calories and still lose more weight on low-carb, so I decided to test the theory by keeping meticulous records in my food journal.

I found that for the same amount of weight loss, I could eat at least 500 calories more on low-carb. So I had a choice between 1200 - 1500 calories of high-carb, or 1500 - 2000 calories of low-carb (you can guess which one I picked). Also, on low-carb, I was far, far less hungry. Heck I'm hungrier on 3,000 calories of high-carb, than on 1200 calories of low-carb.

I could be losing more quickly than I am, but I find it extremely difficult to stick to very low carb eating. I keep finding myself "cheating," because I still can't help thinking of low-carb, especially low-grain diets as unhealthy. I have no problem staying within my calorie alottment, but I tend to trade protein exchanges for carb exchanges and think it's ok, because "a calorie is a calorie" (even though I've learned it's not entirely true, I still can't easily unlearn 4 decades of dieting "wisdom").

Another huge difference in my efforts "this time," is in deciding not to be miserable. I decided to look at healthy behaviors as a way to pamper my wonderful self, not punish my lazy, crazy, stupid self.

As a culture, we tend to look at weight loss and healthy behaviors at best as a necessary evil - boring, unpleasant, sometimes even painful.

Is it any wonder that it's an endeavor that's so easily abandoned? It's not only human nature, it's animal nature as well to engage in behaviors that are rewarded, and avoid behaviors that are punished.

With weight loss the reward is so far off, and the punishments so immediate, that giving up seems like the most sensible thing to do, so you have to find ways to make it more immediately rewarding.

For me, that was a reward chart. I felt silly at first, like I was back in kindergarten, but it actually helped.



Another thing that helps is my TOPS group (taking off pounds sensibly). I lost most of my weight without an in-person weight loss group, but I know I lose better and more consistently when I have a support group. 3FC was initially that support group, but the weekly weigh-in of an in-person group adds an extra push.

TOPS clubs also run all sorts of fun contests, which I also find helpful and motivating.

That's my only suggestion too. Up the protein and healthy fats. Ditch the non-veggie carbs.

The shredded wheat, sandwich bread, and mac & cheese would kill me. I keep coming to the conclusion that I can *NOT* lose weight if I'm having wheat products. When I cut it out, my skin is less flaky too.

I'm doing meals on the cheap right now, so today's menu is dull and boring:
Breakfast: 2 eggs, light sprinkle of cheese, salsa
Lunch: Raw spinach, chicken boob, egg, light cheese, 1/4 C green pepper, 1/4 C onion, 1 tablespoon of olive oil, balsamic vinegar (NOT vinaigrette dressing)
Dinner: Pinto beans, onion, 1/2 c brown rice, spices.

LC Snacks I keep around: CarbMaster yogurt--it's 80 calories and 4g of carbs. Celery with a little natty peanutbutter. I've also been known to eat a boiled egg as a snack. Individual packs of peanuts are good to keep around. I'm also a sucker for beef jerky and beef sticks, but no one needs to know that since they're processed garbage.

Okay, so next trip to the doctor (in a couple of months) I'll talk to him and push him to either do more testing or give me a referral to a specialist. He did tell me last time that he believes I'm insulin resistant but didn't really explain what that meant for me - just that it was common for obese people. I should have asked more questions but I was trying to take in all of my test results and didn't ask the follow up questions I should have. I guess I just figured that since the "important" tests came back normal that this had to be just something "weird" but normal for my body.

Until I go back I'll try tweaking my carbs. Looking back over my intake logs I do note that when I was losing at first in addition to eating fewer calories I was eating very few carbs. I added the extra carbs back in because I wanted to have the healthier whole grains (shredded wheat, whole grain bread, etc.) as a part of my healthy diet. But maybe my body just can't tolerate that for some reason. Anyway, can't hurt to try and tweak it a bit.

This is all SO frustrating when people make it seem like it should be SO simple and it's so NOT simple for me. Ugh!

However, I am not willing to give up. I'm frustrated, I'm disappointed, I'm confused but I'm not willing to allow the weight to rule my life or ruin my health. Even if I never lose another pound my body will be healthier because I'm exercising and feeding my body better.

This was and still is the hardest part for me to fully grasp, that the food pyramid didn't apply to me. That grains weren't my best food choice.

I strongly recommend a food and symptom diet, because I learned from my journals that I not only lost weight on a low-carb diet, I felt and looked better too. I have fewer symptoms and flares of my health issues.

Keeping a journal also helps you see patterns that you'd otherwise miss. For a long time, I assumed that most TOM weight gain was because I was eating more because of the extra hunger, instead I learned that up to 10 lbs can show up, even if I'm eating perfectly on plan. If I get discouraged and decide I might as well eat, I'll put on some "real" pounds, but if I don't panic, and stay on-plan, those TOM pounds fall right off.

Overall, I think it's important to realize that weight loss isn't easy. We act as if it is, and as if you'd have to be a moron not to be able to do it right, but the fact is most of us get it wrong many times before we get it right. In a sense, weight loss is harder than rocket science, - because at least with rocket science people admit that it's difficult to understand and put to use.

Sure it's easy (in theory) to lose some weight in the short term (don't eat for a week and you'll do it), but keeping it off is another matter.

Mastering weight loss is a real accomplishment, but a lot of it is simply learning not to shoot ourselves in the feet. We're taught to do weight loss in a way that makes it harder, rather than easier. We have to find all the little ways to make it easier, and from what I've learned here and elsewhere, those little things can be very different. What works for one person may be the exact opposite of what works for someone else.

I'm going to jump in here with some low-carb cheer-leading too.

It made me cringe to read the example of your usual daily menu, Sunshine. I would be starving on that. And I cringed because...well, been there, done that at least a million times. And I came to the realization that for me....limiting calories virtually gets me nowhere (except big time frustrated) but serious low-carbing works magic for me. It's the only eating plan I use now....I just couldn't take the nightmare any more.

My theory is that I have some sort of carb metabolism disorder. And I say that because clearly....calorie counting works for many but is always an abysmal failure for me.....and has been every single one of the hundreds of times I tried it.
And.....if you are insulin-resistant, you may very well be in the same category (carb metabolism dysfunction) that I think I am (and kaplods probably is).

When I look at (read about) all of the members here who lost significant weight by calorie-counting.....it's like looking at someone who can pull a rabbit out of a hat....and I can't...no matter how many times or how hard I try. There clearly is something metabolically different between me and them (and I'm an RN so can recognize variations in clinical patterns).

And IMO, there is nothing more frustrating that depriving myself and getting no reward/results from it. The morning after morning of seeing the scale not move or go up....and curse the skies, frustrated and angry.

I will venture a bet here that those who have great success with calorie-counting and read your example daily menu are highly suspicious that you left a lot out. Left out the candy bar you had as a snack at work, etc. Because for them, if they stuck to what you wrote as your daily menu, they would be losing weight. Ergo, why they want you to see a doctor or nutritionist. Because it just seems baffling that someone would not only fail to lose but could even gain on the restricted caloric intake you related here.

And to make it clear, I am not saying not to see a doctor or a nutritionist....but first, why don't you try some serious low-carbing to see if that might not be your problem? For those of us who have the carbohydrate metabolism problem...it's almost black and white. Calorie-counting works for them....but not for us. It's worth a try to see if that's what is causing your problem.

And for ME, it has to be strict induction to LOSE weight and then moderate low-carb to maintain. But I have fantastic success with this method....yet abject failure trying to calorie-count.

BTW...to kaplods....I take an additional B-complex supplement to cover the lack of grains in my diet. I've actually come to the point where I see all grains as poison. For maintenance, I add in fruits and beans....but not grains. And of course, no simple carbs...as I see them as poison also. But the main vitamins missing if not eating grains or eating very little of them are the B-vitamins (riboflavin, thiamine, etc.)...so I take supplements for that.

Deena

I think Deena hit the nail on the head.

People of normal weight and who have never yo-yo dieted repeated can say "a calorie is a calorie". I think for us, it is never that simple. I could have been writing your post at any time during this journey.

BTW, Don't forget to acknowledge your anger. Stuff that inside and it turns to depression. Then that "F this" attitude will slap you upside your head and undo all you have accomplished so far.

Our bodies respond to carbs as if each is a candy bar of pure sugar. I have also found I am intolerant to wheat. While I'll eat potatos occasionally, quinoa and sometimes fruit, I have eliminated all wheat from my diet. No pasta or bread or soups with thickeners (usually with flour). I rarely eat breaded things. Things like McD's chicken nuggets tear me up! Amazingly, my occasional intestinal distresses (read, diarrhea) went away completely.

I am also writing to cheer you on. You can do this. Turn this frustration into determination. So what? We ain't normal. Time to move on and not focus not what I can't do, but what I can. You can too!!

Hugs,
Ratkity

Oh yes, I would get extremely angry.....followed by depression and loss of hope that anything would ever work for me, jealous of others who could actually lose weight, frustrated that others would not believe how hard I'd tried, etc. That drove me to the most sugary thing in the kitchen, usually. Nothing like anger and frustration to make me want to shovel some sugar into my mouth.
It was not only depressing....but it was counter-productive. The net result was that all my efforts to lose weight were ending up in weight gain, usually, thanks to the sugar I would need to soothe my anger and depression from getting nowhere repeatedly.

And believe me....when I calorie-counted, I did not cheat. I lost 65 lbs. in about 8 months between 8/09 and somewhere between 3/10 and 4/10 (and have kept it off, btw).....using Atkins. And I never cheated either....just to show that I am a person that CAN stick to a diet. So cheating was not the cause of the calorie-counting failure for me. I was strict and dedicated with both calorie-counting and with Atkins. One worked and one didn't....it's as simple as that....for ME.

And to add....it was much easier to not cheat on Atkins because I did not have the constant ravenous hunger I had when calorie-counting (due to the carbs I was eating). Atkins literally took away all the constant hunger, the sugar cravings and the binge cravings....which did make it much easier for me....but the true motivation was that it WORKED! And worked consistently....all the way to goal.

And boy, there is just nothing like getting consistent results week after week. It was almost thrilling, to be honest....had to keep going out to Goodwill to get smaller and smaller jeans (and re-donate the bigger ones). Went from 38/40" waist all the way, in increments, down to 29" waist.

I don't go around here telling everyone to use low-carbing. I only mention or suggest it when I come across someone who seems to be running into the same problems I did....and want to tell them what worked for me. I figure that it's worth a try at the very least. It made the difference between making it and not making it for me.....and I want to share that with anyone who looks like they might be dealing with the same problem I have.

And to the calorie-counters who have great success here....I am fascinated and impressed with you and how you manage to do that....because I can't. And I finally figured out that there truly are people who need to do it a different way due to true physiologic differences. I am sure that anyone and everyone who might go low-carb would most likely lose weight also, including the ones who also have success with calorie-counting. But for some of us....only one of the methods works and the other one is just a repeated abysmal failure.

I've done quite a bit of research into this whole issue for the past 2 years or so. Go to youtube and watch some of the videos featuring Gary Taubes or Robert Lustig if you get a chance....very insightful.

deena

I so agree, Deena. I applaud the pure calorie counters that have success. Just like that guy who lost weight on the Twinkie diet. Oiy!

One of the other things that this site and wonderful people have instilled in my head is that the changes need to be in small small increments. My way of eating has been in my brain for as long as I've been alive (48 yrs). My coping mechanisms and eating are unfortunately linked. I handle small changes easier and don't immediately revert back to old behaviors when life plops a boat-load of stress into my lap.

Sunshine, hang in there! You aren't alone and you can do this.

Hugs,
Ratkity

Deena52 - Yep, I am insulin resistant, and I think I've been all of my life, surely insulin-disfunctional.

I'm so hesitant to mention low-carb, because so many people still believe it's unhealthy and unsustainable (and sometimes I still hear those whispers in my own head).

When I was younger, I did think a calorie was a calorie, because I truly did lose about the same amount of weight on 1200 calories of junk as on 1200 calories of healthier foods or 1200 calories of low-carb (During low-carb I lost more the first week, mostly water, but then the weight loss followed at about the same rate as high carb). Whenever I tried low-carb, I gave up by the fourth or fifth week because I stayed on induction level, which is too low for me. In my case, "induction flu" doesn't go away (low blood sugar, I'm guessing). If I had gone on to OWL, I would probably have been fine, but the nausea, lightheadedness and even fainiting on induction proved to me that low-carb was unhealthy (so I thought), so I never gave it a chance. I didn't even think of trying to increase carbs, but only very slightly (or even eating more frequently probably would have helped to keep blood sugar levels more normal).

But even when I was losing the same on 1200 calories of anything, 1200 calories of low-carb drastically reduced my hunger (to the point that I'd forget to eat, and then get dizzy, shaky, and irritable).

Just for the hunger relief, I should have been looking at reduced-carb, but at the time (and even now) there seemed to be two main perspectives. That low-carb (in any form) was unhealthy and even possibly dangerous, and that low-carb to be effective had to be nearly no-carb. No one was advocating moderate-carb, or reducing carbs to find your own best level (I do think it varies tremendously from person to person).

I found plenty of arguments for high-carb, and I found arguments for virtually no-carb, but no support at all (what works best for me) is "low-but-not-too-low carb".

We are seeing more moderately low-carb plans like South Beach and Primal Blueprint, but there still isn't much information or advice on finding the perfect carb level for you. Instead you have tons of competing plans all telling us that their plan's carb level is the right carb level.

Although I think I've found my "right carb level" for now, I doubt that it is a number written in stone. I suspect it will change based on my weight, health, age, medications and activity level.


I think the weight loss researchers have to stop looking at "which plan is best" (assuming that there is a one-size-fits-all best) and start looking at who to predict which plans work best for which people. Is there a way to determine the individual needs of the dieter and how to best meet those needs?

For now, though, we're on our own. The best thing I ever did for myself was make myself an experiment of one. I used an exchange plan to experiment with different carb/fat/protein ratios.

While I do eat some grains now (maybe a few servings a week, and I try to choose high protein grains like quinoa), I would have never discovered my negative reaction to wheat without having gone no-grain for a while. I didn't know whether it was grains or carbs or a specific carb, so I had to do some more experiments to find that wheat is the main culprit (even a small amount of wheat triggers a joint and skin issue flare), overeating other grains and sugar have a similar effect.

I don't, as far as I know, have any sort of blood sugar/insulin issues (in terms of a specific diagnosis) but I am really starting to believe that there has to be a category of us who have some sort of carb metabolism problem (and with many, it also involves a diagnosable alteration in insulin production and response).

I'm still trying to figure this out. Some of the Taubes explanations can become quite complex when it comes to the biochemical processes. If I was a biochemist, I could probably understand them much better...but I'm only an RN.

And speaking of that....in nursing school and back in the 70's when I was working in a hospital....the picture of diabetes was quite different compared to now and the past few decades. There were 2 types back then....and the insulin-dependent ones where always childhood-onset and the adult-onset ones were always able to be simply diet-controlled. AND there was always a very strong family history of diabetes.
There was also NOT all this insulin-resistance and PCOS that seem to be running rampant now. The whole medical picture of diabetes was very different back then.

And it truly does track back to when they started all this low-fat/fat is bad for you stuff, adding additional sugar (usually in the form of HFCS) into all the new low-fat foods that came out.....beginning an epidemic of obesity and diabetes.....and to boot, a whole different picture of the types of diabetes seen.

The main concern for me, as far as being healthy goes....is the vitamin issue. And if supplements (esp. the B-vitamins) are just as good as eating the grains are. Does the body utilize the supplements as well as they do the vitamins in the food?
Other than that, I can't logically think (medically-speaking) of what else might be a safety or danger issue with the low-carb, higher fat diets. All the studies, including a recent huge Mayo Clinic one, are consistently showing that fat is NOT what they said it was and does NOT cause cardiac disease. I do wonder, however, if fat can be a big problem IF it is eaten in large amounts with simple carbs. I know there is no way we could lose weight on that combination (could not go into ketosis) but the question is.....could that combo make eating plenty of fat medically risky somehow?

I am truly fascinated by this whole switch from "fat is bad" to "sugar is bad"....and I totally agree with it. I just don't totally understand it when it comes to the biochemical details.
I have truly, at this point, been converted to seeing sugar and HFCS as poison but not seeing fat as bad. And as far as protein goes, I honestly don't eat all that much more protein than I normally would...even on a regular diet (not low-carb)....because so much of my intake involves veggies (with butter and cheese on them...which fills me up and keeps me full) and my protein intake is certainly not high, by any stretch of the imagination. But I do use butter and mayo freely......in fact, I HAVE to eat them in order to maintain the ketosis and lose weight.

And for ME.....I have to do militant low-carb to go into ketosis ad lose weight. Moderate low-carb will not work for me.....not for weight LOSS. For maintenance it works quite well. But give me some cake or ice cream....and I'm in BIG-TIME trouble. And why is that? When others can do it and not be flung into hunger, sugar-cravings and binge mode like I am?

There HAS to be something different about us....I just have to believe that. I mean, the successful calorie-counters here seem to be quite happy with their calorie-counting. For me, not only would I not lose weight, but I would be miserable...hungry and craving sugar and binging. Why do they seem quite OK on calorie-counting and also lose weight on it? There has to be a metabolic/physiologic/medical cause for it.

And kaplods~I couldn't agree more with you regarding wishing they would now investigate more into the WHO the plans work for and not just WHY the plans work. In the video of the Taubes lecture at Dartmouth, the examples he gave, to back the new theories, were ones like: a certain group, during a time of famine and eating strictly carbs pretty much....resulted in a certain percentage that, while malnourished (due to the famine and lack of enough food) got and/or remained quite fat. BUT....there were also a percentage who became/remained thin. The fat ones certainly point in the direction of the problem having been the carbohydrates....rather than the amount of food/calories. But what about the thin ones? Was the carb metabolism the same for all of them? Or do some of us have this specific problem while others do not? And what are the markers that identify which category we are in?

I know you already know that ketoacidosis is dangerous but ketosis is not. And I don't think we eat nearly enough protein to be concerned about NH4 and kidney problems. That leaves the vitamin issue only, as far as I can see....but like I said, I am still trying to understand all these changes....the ones promoted by Taubes and Lustig.

And one of my big questions is.....would low-carbing work just as well for the calorie-counters? And might it make them realize that gee, this is even better? Or do they truly feel better calorie-counting and are not always hungry doing that (like we would be)?

Hehe.....I wish I could have Gary Taubes explain this whole thing to me in person.

deena

PS....oh, and another question I have is...how do Eskimos not get vitamin-deficiencies?

For me, when I say moderate carb, I definitely don't mean cake or ice cream. Any high glycemic carb and I'm on a crazy train to shoving food in my mouth until my stomach feels like it's going to burst.

Last night I had a small binge that was triggered by a small serving of instant mashed potatoes.

It's just that on 20 - 40g of carbs or less, I end up nauseous, dizzy, and very, very angry.

I am finding it difficult to find the perfect balance. A carb level high enough to prevent the headaches, nausea, dizziness, shakiness, and intense irritability (to the point of rage - usually directed at poor hubby), yet low enough to prevent irrational hunger.

Paleo does pretty well, but even fruit can send me over the edge.


Right now I'm experimenting with 1 grain/starch exchange, 3 fruit (1 apple is 2 fruit exchanges), 1 dairy (plus a calcium supplement), 10 fat, and unlimited non-starchy veggies and proteins.

I keep finding that I have to reduce the starch and fruit exchanges more and more, in order to lose weight. The line between low-enough and too-low seems to be very hard for me to distinguish.

What the heck are we doing up at 4 am., kaplods?

I have spoiled my cat rotten so she will come and keep batting me in the head in the middle of the night because she wants her small meal that she has become accustomed to getting (thanks to overly-indulgent me)....little princess. And then I can't fall back to sleep for a while.

Now I am really interested in why you have the problem with the headache/nausea/dizziness. I don't have that at all....as long as I stay below 16-20 carbs max daily.....and only get my carbs from veggies and things like eggs and dairy. I'm wondering why that is. Exactly what carbs do you allow yourself to have? I'm interested in whether you add some in that I don't....or if it's totally unrelated to that. I always get fascinated when I see any sort of difference in clinical patterns.

Also.....what do you think of egg yolks....in terms of medically causing problems (that whole cholesterol issue), yes or no? I don't even worry about them (and horrify my dad) and eat as many as I want. In fact, I see eggs as the perfect protein. Curious about what you think.

deena

ADDED: You know, I'm trying to think this through.....and with insulin-resistance, your body is producing insulin but not responding to it as well as it should........so then, that could mean that you are not processing and absorbing every single one of the carbs/glucose in the low-carb items you eat (meaning the really low-carb ones) so that you need to go up the carb ladder a few steps in order to get the carbs you need to absorb to keep you from the hunger/nausea/headaches, etc. BECAUSE there is a minimum number of carbs we NEED for metabolism in general. So if I don't have insulin-resistance, I can eat a militant (Atkins induction type) diet and feel great.....because I am absorbing all the carbs in the items I eat.....but with you having insulin-resistance....could it be that you need to add more carbs and carbs that are a bit more simple (as in higher glycemic) to make up for the lower processing/absorbing issue you could have due to insulin-resistance? That if, let's say, you stuck with no more than 20 gms/day of carbs from really low-carb foods (veggies, eggs and dairy)....you would not, due to the insulin-resistance....have all 20 of those carbs available to utilize (necessary for the whole Krebs cycle thing) and need to go up the carb ladder a bit and add more carbs in to get a net absorption of 20 gms.? And....could that be why you can eat more carbs than I can when I am trying to LOSE weight (and not just maintain)? Is it making sense the way I wrote it?