Stall

Sorry for the confusion! I means "calorie requirements" as in UNDER 800 per day.

As Mahonia indicated, it's possible to be done, if you are out of control on intake and at this stage likely drinking lots of calories, but it is unlikely the case if you are under some control and working on, or toward, solid foods.

Overall, it is a game of learning control, and controlling calories, or an analog such as carbohydrates, fats or total volume. Today most people concentrate on carbohydrates because that is the fashion of the day - it's big with the diet industry right now. 20-30 years ago people counted fats because that was what the diet industry was into - they did just as well then, with or without WLS, as people do today.

So, yes, you can have some carbohydrates and fats to the extent that they fit within your caloric limits, you get enough protein in, and concentrate on real whole foods rather than junk (whether they be junk carbs, junk fats, junk proteins - anything that is high calorie/low nutrition) and overall, that is a very good long term approach as it helps to avoid the "diet" mentality and break the common yo-yo pattern.

800 calories is a good baseline to shoot for - some can work at higher levels if their metabolism allows, while a few may need to work at less than that.

Thank you so much for explaining that to me. I will try to watch my calorie intake and follow your guidelines. I really want to lose the extra weight but I still dont want to be deprived of carbs and fats. I will try to find a balance.

If you are looking to lose in a balanced way, try balanced macros. 40% protein, 25%fat, 35% carb.

my focus was nutritionally dense foods. So carb sources were fruits (mainly berries) and vegetables, a tiny but of oats (2tbs) and (chia) seeds. And of course whatever was in my shakes (minimal).

Ditto for fats...frankly i avoided cheese, too easy to over eat, is saturated fat and for me, a weight loss staller. and prefer to get my fat from healthier sources like avocado and nuts.

In addition I avoided processed foods, the only processed food in my diet was protein shakes.

also I weighed and tracked everything...it is the best way to be accountable and also to figure out if there is anything you need to change.

You know, I've seen this argument a few times around here (that the carb consciousness is just a craze like low fat, low sugar, insert-previous-diets-here).

I disagree.

Yes, we did look to other ways of eating in years and decades past. No doubt about it. But has it occurred to you that nutritional science and dieters as a culture learned from those wrong ways of eating? Possibly leading them to the protein forward meals many are eating today? I'd venture a guess that there is much accumulated knowledge about why all of those "diets" didn't work. And about why emphasizing protein does.

Everyone is correct as far as a calorie being a calorie. What seems to be forgotten is that some foods induce a level of satiety and fullness that make it easier to go without snacks and empty carbs. I don't know anyone doesn't notice a difference when they eat 300 calories of beef versus 300 calories of ice cream.

Your logic is so reasonable. Thank you ?

I find 150 calories of artichoke with some garlic butter every bit as satisfying, and enduring, as 300 calories of beef - not a bad "diet" food for a bunch of nasty carbs (and yes, some fat, too, but negligible protein. Assuming one already getting sufficient protein for the day, isn't that a better choice than another steak with more calories? This points up the minor detail that the real world isn't as simple as the diet books portray, and most of our foods, and meals when we're a little further out, aren't purely protein, or fat, or carbohydrate, and these different macronutrients will vary by virtue of their character and composition - a steak is more and longer satisfying than a protein drink; high fiber vegetables are more satisfying than a chip or cookie.

Nutrition science shows us that carbohydrates have the least enduring satiety, in general, of the macros, though they are the quickest responding, providing the earliest satiety signals to the brain - it's that insulin hit that does it. (though this may not be a big deal to us with a reduced stomach where we probably get the initial stretch signals earlier than normal people) while protein takes longer to induce any satiety signals, but is more enduring, and fats fall somewhere in between. One of the tricks to maintaining a healthy diet is playing these factors together to get a whole that works better than the parts alone, just as a good recipe blends flavors and consistencies that are more pleasing and satisfying than its component parts alone.

There are only so many things that can be done to a diet in an effort to promote weight loss - reduce/eliminate carbohydrates, fats, or proteins, cut one while increasing another, eliminate or emphasize one major food group or another, etc. and they have all been tried before, often multiple times in different guises, over the past century or so. There is a generational cycle between low carb and low fat centered diets, and to some extent there is a demographic component that is being addressed - back in the fifties and sixties, the majority of excess calories came from fats - one couldn't run a restaurant without a bank of deep fryers in the kitchen - and people weren't sucking up soda by the six pack and half gallon. Low fat diets were a reasonable response to this, but as is human nature, the "More" theory tends to dominate (if cutting back some fat is good, cutting back more of it, or eliminating it must be better....) So things go into the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mode and avocados, eggs and salmon get tossed out along with the Big Macs and KFC. The food industry with their "better ideas" of fake fats and frankenfoods didn't help either.

Similarly, low carb dieting was a reasonable response to the increasing sugar intake as people moderated their fat intake, but likewise the diet industry goes into the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" mode and broccoli and apples become as evil as soda pop and Twinkies. Very much a mirror image of the low fat days.

Yes, nutrition science (as distinct from diet science, which tends to be more hypothetical and marketing oriented) does learn from the past, and some elements of previously popular diet trends do get adopted into mainstream scientific thought as they get validated - the suggested limits on saturated fats and elimination of the artificial trans fats do survive from the low fat days, as those benefits have been well demonstrated. Likewise, it does seem that science has become more cautious about extrapolating benefits found in limited cases to the whole of humanity - dietary cholesterol is a concern for a few with certain morbidities, but not the big deal in general that it was thought to be; likewise, is controlling insulin, a big deal in the low carb arena, an analogous situation? It is a transport mechanism that moves protein as well as fats, so strict limitations may not be the great universal idea that is sometimes promoted - our physiology and chemistry likes to surprise us with its complexity.

Nutrition science is evolutionary, and moves more slowly than many may like it to, which is why we see these diet trends, which are based upon less certain hypotheses come and go, and get frustrated if their RDs aren't "up" with the "latest science" which while interesting and fun to speculate about, doesn't necessarily help their patients.

As an aside, wouldn't sugar free ice cream be a near perfect keto junk food - low carb, moderate protein, high fat but low nutrition?

I've neither the time or inclination to go much further into this. It's fascinating stuff for sure and I concede many of your points - we may be closer in our assessment of realistic eating plans than we appear.

With that in mind, I'll just note that I've never heard of anyone getting to 300+ pounds because they indulged in avocado. That seems to me a bit of a disingenuous point.

For the sake of clarifying although I'm not sure it's needed: the carbs in question are of the simple variety as described by hollykim. While I wouldn't call myself "carb phobic" I am certainly "carb respectful". The carb caveat to all WLS folks in my mind becomes how to stay "full" for as long as possible and on as few calories as possible when a person is in weight loss mode and sometimes even as we maintain.

For example, I can easily and without too much thought consume a 1,000 calorie meal at a fast food restaurant. Especially when I add French fries and dessert. However there is no possible way for me to reach 1,000 calories in one meal when that meal is mostly dense protein (and yes some fat) along with non-carby veggies like broccoli. Simply put I no longer have the physical capacity.

The end result is that I consume less calories when focusing on proteins and as we all know calorie deficit is what 99% of us need in order to lose weight. Fortunately for all of us, food choices are ultimately a personal decision. The OP got a good dose of information, the responsibility for acting or not acting upon it is certainly hers and she now has all of the info needed ( and then some) to be successful.

I suspect that you are right -that we are closer than it may seem. As you experienced (IIRC) when you first got into this WLS and everyone seemingly were criticized for not being "smart enough" to get the latest and greatest DS, when I got here there was a clique of disciples of one surgeon who firmly told everyone that if they didn't follow their doc's program, and strayed any amount over 40g of carbs (though preferably 30, and later 20) that you could never lose weight or get anywhere near goal, all evidence, historical and scientific, to the contrary.

I think that the main problem is when nutrition meets the diet business and science gives way to marketing and mythology (you have to eat fat to burn fat, fat/protein doesn't make you fat, carbs make you fat, etc.) Carb (or fat) counting games create a distraction from the basic goal of developing good eating habits. One can diligently stick to a 20g carb diet that's full of artificially sweetened junk that behaves like the real thing, or ignore the counts and strive for nutritious whole foods that might put one into the 60g range that has a more benign impact on the body; quality vs. quantity. Worse yet may be those who skip the broccoli and beans to "save" their carb budget to treat themselves to a Twinkie. These are the messages that are often transmitted in these forums by "carb shaming" rather than nutritional sanity, such as the automatic assumption that the OP was speaking of not giving up cookies rather than fruits and veg.

"such as the automatic assumption that the OP was speaking of not giving up cookies rather than fruits and veg."

Wait a minute. How did you decide she was talking about fruits and veggies and not cookies and chips? Because I did not see a clarification in any way of what carbs she actually refers to. Did she clarify?

It's my contention that all of the fruit and veggie carbs in the world will not make a person morbidly obese. Those attempting to limit carbs limit these things for their own reasons and I understand that . But I believe the OP stated that she was not following an eating plan AND that she was not giving up carbs. Since I can't see that post from here please correct me if I'm wrong.

Perceived "carb-shaming" when it comes from the vets here is really an attempt to direct the newer folks and those with regain to the facts we discussed above which tend to ensure success in further weight loss and/or maintenance. I'm almost positive I've not seen anyone "shamed" for eating carbs. Corrected yes, guided and advised yes and yes. But shame? Do you have a post you can refer back to that illustrates this "shaming" aspect?

edited to add: perhaps the biggest and most troubling aspect (for me) of this whole thread is my apparent inability to leave it alone, lol. The OP's questions have been asked an answered. I wonder if a separate thread dedicated to these mores might be a more appropriate place to continue this type of discussion.