We're getting quite a few new members here and some questions crop up regularly, so I think it's time for a bit of LCHF mythbusting. Feel free to add to this list.
How quickly will I lose weight on LCHF?
There's no way of knowing. There's no magic to LCHF - it's just a healthy diet. When you eat healthy food, your body will discard bodyfat that it has accumulated "by mistake". But there's no way to predict how fast that will happen for any given individual. Some people are slim within a few months; for others, it can take years.
When I reach my ideal weight, do I then go back to eating normally?
No. "Eating normally" is what made you fat in the first place.
The nutritionists believe that if you're in calorie deficit, you'll lose weight at a nice linear 0.5kg/week, with the implication that you'll eventually achieve negative body fat and then wink out of existence. Back in the real world, you'll start off by losing weight quite rapidly, and then it'll slow to a crawl as your body reaches what it believes is your ideal bodyweight. You can allow your carb intake to rise slowly at this point, and most people settle on something less than 100g/day. That's your maintenance diet, which you'll eat forever.
There's rarely any need to do this consciously and deliberately - your appetite will guide you.
Will I look like a supermodel?
Unfortunately, a healthy diet can't fix what nature gave you :). LCHF can reduce your bodyfat. That's all. Once you reach a sensible bodyfat ratio, you'll find that your body shape is defined entirely by your muscles, and if you don't have any, you'll look a bit rough. Get thee to a gym, and put some meat on your bones. Then you'll look like a supermodel.
Should I still count/reduce calories?
I don't recommend it. Eat until you are full. Most people find that their appetite reduces dramatically during the weight-loss phase, because your body is burning through stored bodyfat and therefore doesn't need extra food. So being full may actually involve surprisingly small (or infrequent) meals.
Although some clinicians do use caloric restriction, there is no theoretical reason why this would speed things up because your body can only burn stored fat at a certain maximum rate: if you reduce food-calories below the point where your body can compensate with fat-burning, it will (of necessity) reduce your metabolic rate instead.
Just follow your appetite. In particular, if you find that you have a reduced desire to eat fat, then don't eat it. Your body is telling you "I have enough fat right here, thanks".
I don't want to have to eat loads of meat.
You'll probably find you're eating the same amount of animal products as you always did. Most of the food on your plate should be low-carb vegetables (typically cooked with some kind of oil or fat). Add animal products to taste. We have one member here who is doing vegan LCHF.
What about my cholesterol?
The common experience is a dramatic improvement in one's lipid panel ... for whatever that's worth. Some people experience a slight increase in TC alongside an improvement in all other parameters. This may cause your doctor a fit of apoplexy, and he will feverishly write out a prescription for statins. I strongly recommend that you don't go down this route. Apart from the fact that "high cholesterol" is not a disease, and doesn't even predict your risk of heart disease with any reliability, statins work by interfering with one of your body's most critical metabolic pathways (the Mevalonate pathway). Despite the drug company propaganda suggesting that they're as "safe as water" and "save lives", this is an outright lie. Depending on how you measure success, the Number-Needed-to-Treat for a long-term course of statins is between 30 and 100, ie., up to 100 people derive no benefit for every one person who does. Meanwhile, at least 1 in 10 people experience some side effects, and 1 in 100 experience extremely serious ones. Nobody even knows how statins achieve their positive outcomes (in the rare cases when they do), although it is now known that it has nothing to do with cholesterol reduction.
By far the best thing you can do for your heart health is to eat well and do some exercise.
But what about all that saturated fat?
There used to be a statement on the BDA website - until I asked them to correct it - that "saturated fat is turned to cholesterol in the liver". That's the sort of foolishness that has given rise to the current fear of saturated fats. The reality is that saturated fats per se don't have any easily-defined effect on total cholesterol or any other lipid fraction, and there's no biological reason to believe that they would - nor, as noted, is there any association between cholesterol and heart disease. Unless you're prepared to trawl through a lot of tedious scientific papers, it's a bit of a leap of faith to just eat and enjoy natural foods again, but think of it this way: the dieticians are telling you that the foods that humans have thrived on for millennia are very bad for you, while food-like substances created via the miracle of technology are uber-healthy. How plausible does this sound?
Your bodyfat is mostly saturated fat (palmitic acid), and it seems a bit unlikely that Nature would have decided on an energy-storage medium that causes heart attacks.
What side effects can I expect?
Healthy diets don't have "side effects". Once you're through the adaptation period, you'll feel better than you have in years.
It's true that you will experience some weirdness during the transition from a high-carb diet; some lightheadedness and weakness is common for a couple of days, but it's no worse than a very mild hangover (it is not like flu, or even like having a cold). Some people experience constipation or bad breath, but these do resolve themselves. These are probably best viewed as "carbohydrate withdrawal" rather than side effects of LCHF. Until these things go away, drink beef broth and adequate water, and use floss!
Written by
TheAwfulToad
Ambassador
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
That’s a brilliant post Toad, describes my journey so far. I’m not looking like a super model, more like a deflated balloon - but change of style of clothes from one size fits a family of four to more shapely styles has certainly drawn favourable comments from friends. As the song goes: “ it’s a new dawn, it’s a new day, it’s a new life for me.....and I’m feeling GOOD!”
"while food-like substances created via the miracle of technology are uber-healthy"
If anyone has any doubts about this, it's worth pointing out that according to the government guidelines on food labelling in the UK, the healthiest food item in the whole supermarket is sugar-free jelly mix.
This is interesting and well thought out TheAwfulToad , carbohydrate withdrawal is interesting and coeliac go through this when first going gluten free because gluten stimulates our opiate receptors.
You are right about changing our diets for good to stay healthy... 👍
A very measured post! Great reminder of some points.
I'm getting a bit frustrated up at the moment of negativity towards keto and LCHF based on misinformation. I think it needs to be put very clearly somewhere, so that anyone researching or thinking of changing to LCHF realises that it does not involve eating weird and wonderful "keto" products, or substitutes of "normal" food... it really is just healthy foods. Why is it so easily misinterpreted? I've not once had that strange sounding concoction of "bullet-proof coffee", and I have to admit I've not ever tried one "keto" recipe off any website.. despite intending to! But all my meals are colourful, full of flavour, and satisfying for me. It doesn't have to be strange or complicated!.. just low carb
The religious wars do get a bit tiresome, don't they? You would have thought they would have burned themselves out by now, but no, they're still going strong.
I mean, I eat meat and vegetables and the occasional bit of cheese or yoghurt. According to the experts, though, I eat steaks boiled in lard for breakfast, dinner and tea, and therefore I'm in mortal danger of dying from a heart attack.
I love my cheese, chorizo, mascarpone, creme fraiche, cream, .. er beer? ... unless something's happening that I don't know about it all seems to suit me!
I understand your frustration. Too often my wife will say "I don't know what to cook for you?". Actually, I think it's a coded message for me to cook, although I'm kinda useless in the kitchen. I must be getting better
Anyway I always reply "Just the same as before, minus all the processed food and drink, and I no longer want to eat potatoes, rice, pasta, and fruits everyday. Fill me up with fat and protein and a drop of carbs. That'll do nicely". She hasn't killed me yet
One thing that probably confuses people is the use of the word 'diet'. In most people's eyes, this is sth we do for a short while, then go back to our bad habits. We all know it's a forever change. There is no going back once we've crossed over and experienced the healthy benefits. It definitely is a lifelong change for me. If I never eat corn flakes again, I'll survive. In more ways than one.
>> I am 24 years old and very active. Eating normally hasn't made me fat yet.
Wait until you're 40
>> what makes people fat is over eating.
No, it really isn't. There are people on the NHS weightloss forum eating 1200kCal/day or less, going crazy with hunger, and they're still fat. There are extremely simple biological reasons for this, but nutritionists think none of that matters because "it's all about thermodynamics".
Even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that fat people are overeating, the question naturally arises: why do they overeat? All animals have an appetite that makes them stop eating when they're full, even when food is readily available. Why would humans be unique in having dysfunctional appetite regulation? It makes no sense.
>> a normal diet is the perfect diet to a healthy life
It all depends what you mean by "normal". Our position here is that what is currently touted as a normal, healthy diet is utterly abnormal in a historical context. How can we tell? Because every third person is overweight and taking a cocktail of pills for obscure chronic diseases. Something is badly wrong.
>> high fat is a bit of a no no in today's world.
Why? What's special about "today's world", apart from the fact that nutritionists have decreed that fat is, like, bad, mmkay?
Anyway, as per the discussion above with Cosmo, most people completely misunderstand the description "high fat". We don't eat food swimming in grease. We just don't obsess over trimming the fat off everything. We don't buy "low fat" products. This kind of diet is only "high fat" in relation to the diet proposed by mainstream nutritionists, which contains no fat at all.
>> so is a moderate amount of carbohydrates.
Again, it depends what you mean by "moderate". We do eat moderate amounts of carbs, not least because a carb-free diet is boring. We only reject the idea that humans should fuel up on nothing but carbs, which is the mainstream view.
And of course the bit that REALLY gets people going isn't cutting out obvious junk - but mention rice spuds pasta bread grains and see the interest shut down totally! I even have a good mate who insists I've only lost weight thru walking not thru cutting carbs - she will not be persuaded otherwise. SIGH!
You should point her in the direction of all those posts on the NHS forum from people saying "I burn XYZ calories at the gym six times a week and I'm eating in my recommended calorie range, but I'm not losing any weight! What am I doing wrong?"
The argument that gets me is this one:
"Oh sure, LCHF probably works, but it's only because you end up eating fewer calories. It's the calorie deficit that makes you lose weight."
To which I'd respond:
Well, no s--t Sherlock. Of course there's a calorie deficit (to begin with, at least). And have you ever tried to impose a calorie deficit? How did that work out for you? Lost all the excess baggage, did you? Felt happy and full? Felt like you were finally eating a natural and healthy diet?
LCHF basically works because it allows your body to compute its own calorie balance, so you don't feel deprived.
I think , somehow we all talk about the same thing in a different way. Otherwise we probably would not be members of this community.
For example: I find the "pure" keto diet which restricts carbohydrates to 20 g a day boring, unsustainable and probably unhealthy. As I put in previous post, butter in coffee and other keto inventions …
In the same time, I am all for eating natural full fat food. Refined sugar and overconsumption of starchy carbs and overly processed protein and fats is what make people obese and unwell.
The abbreviation "LCHF", as people pointed out in previous posts is deceptive and creates additional confusion of what exactly is the meaning of "high fat".
I reckon, each of us on this forum follow a variation of LCHF that suits them best in order to lose or maintain weight and get healthier.
I agree. There are hard reasons why removing dietary carbs works, but LCHF is incredibly flexible, and many find that it works even with a very modest carb reduction, such as dropping fizzy drinks, cakes, and low-fat rubbish. David Unwin is getting an excellent success rate by just telling people to remove the obvious "white carbs" and junk food, and to not be afraid of full-fat foods.
While I wouldn't argue that remaining keto is unhealthy (there doesn't seem to be any evidence suggesting that) it's certainly boring and weird. I'll have my coffee with cream or milk in it, thanks!
Great post. I have been on a LCHF diet for some months now and weight loss has plateaued however weight loss is not my reason for starting it. The main reason is reversing pre-diabetes. A good few LCHF proponents refer to HF as “Healthy Fats” meaning that the refined seed oils (including canola, margarine, etc.) are excluded.
I am also on a time restricted feeding (TRF) regime meaning that I fast from 2pm to 8am and this is helping on a lot of fronts. One is my fasting glucose which is now 5 or below.
The timing takes some adjustment but some fast from 8pm to midday or another schedule so it’s got to fit in with one’s lifestyle and not the other way around otherwise it will be ineffective.
LCHF with TRF does mean being careful with what one eats and drinks. If you are eating too much protein (meat, eggs, cheese) when fasting (like I was) it can cause some issues.
I recently had kidney stones (uric acid type), which some can get when fasting, so keeping hydrated with electrolytes is important, especially when exercising in a fasted state (an 8 mile walk with not enough water was what caused it).
LCHF has had a positive impact in getting my health in order so would not change.
I am new to all the above-mentioned. I love this forum and its people. I have sat on the side-lines for quite awhile, reading every post. I took the decision 3 weeks ago to change. One, to lose weight..1 and half stone, but also to feel better in my gut. I ran LC-HF by my dr, as with warfarin, you can't chop and change ways of eating, so I'M TOLD. Not only did my dr approve, he told me he had been eating this way! He has featured 2x in our surgery notes and has lost 6 stone over 2 years. He says he has no carbs after 12 noon.
I find breakfast difficult, as I'm not a brekkie person. However, I am on permanent steroids and have to eat after taking them and before 9am. I used to have 5 Tblsp natural yogurt and hungry by 11am.
I have a cooked breakfast most days and last until well after lunch most days. My BP was so good on Monday, that I thought the nurse would do cartwheels! I take a tablet for high BP.
There's a lot I don't know, and am forever on the PC to find out.
I don't like fish unless battered/breaded, so, am afraid there are some cheats. I have surprised myself completely, by not having sugary items, nor bread, pasta, etc. I don't buy them either. I have 1 coffee, black a day, and do have a quartes spoon sugar..used to be 2 spoons.
Anyway, before I bore you any further, I'll sign off for now.
I totally detest the expression 'eat normally'. What does that mean? All the pies in the pie shop, double burger and fries at every meal?
I totally refuse to count calories. A real stamp footy no.
I want to eat healthy food and lose weight so I can have a new pair of knees and not get diabetes.
The fat issue is the oddest. The dearly beloved looked askance when I mentioned butter - he won't touch it.
My work mates practically had me burned as a witch for mentioning it. Mind you, one chaps idea of low card is not having bread and butter with his dinner and only one chocolate bar at tea break.
Hard to disagree with, but it's a bit vague, isn't it?
Dieticians use words like "balanced" without ever describing what yardstick they're using ... or occasionally by defining a yardstick that makes no sense at all. The Eatwell plate, for example, considers the word "balanced" to mean "as much carbohydrate as humanly possible, no fat, and bare-minimum protein". Sorry, but that doesn't sound very balanced to me.
That second link (nutrition.org.uk) is such utter nonsense it's hard to know where to start with a critique, but I suppose my main beef is this: it starts from the assumption that humans are incapable of regulating their own calorie intake. Dogs and cats and beetles and elephants can do it. Even bacteria can do it. Why can't humans? Why could they (apparently) do it just fine before dieticians appropriated the word "calories" to mean something it doesn't?
I just love this bit:
"To learn some more about energy, click here."
If you click that link, you're taken to some more drivel that would have a chemist or physicist sobbing into his hands. In fact that page is so desperately ignorant I'm going to write a separate post on it when I have time.
I dunno, when nutritional experts have assessed the government eat well plates (which is really what people are referring to when they talk about a balanced diet), they actually found it to be nutritionally deficient, leaving people lacking in certain key vitamins and minerals.
Our society has a very weird obsession with macro-nutrients, yet they often forget about the micronutrients. To pull on TAD's point that other species manage to regulate their own body weight, I think their diets contain the micronutrients they need, while our often falls short on the prescribed "balanced diet". We're nutritionally deficient, and our bodies think we need to eat more to deal with that (only we keep eating more of the same nutritionally deficient foods).
My OH, in his seventies, was well on the way to type 2 diabetes until the change to LCHF. We weren’t sure if it would suit him after he had his gall bladder removed and was given the standard advice to go “low fat”, but he’s doing well. Cholesterol levels are also “within government guidelines” according to the GP (not that we would have taken much account of that anyway).
We’ve gone back to the way of eating we followed, more or less, before the advent of the “low fat” advice.
Ah, there's the rub. A normal diet, or 'eating normally' means to most people, what they ate befire that made them fat. A lot of people have no idea of portion size or of actually how much sugar and fat etc. is in the food they buy.
I've just been shopping and looking round the supermarket at all the 'low fat' and 'healty' products is depressing. Don't get me started on the packet stuff that will outlive cockroaches.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
LCHF Practitioners - Please be aware!
Eat fat to Burn fat?