Originally Posted by jschwab

I don't think that is supposed to be how it works, though. You do the 30 days to figure out what's bugging you in your diet so you can continue to avoid it. I don't remember it even seeming like a weight loss diet per se, more like a food journaling opportunity based around avoiding common triggers (for weight gain, bad digestion, headaches, etc.). I think the 30 part of it is about it taking awhile to clear some symptoms food sensitivities. It bills itself as an elimination diet and that is exactly what it is. I actually really love it. But you have to understand what it is. It's not necessarily about weight loss. A lot of my friends who've done it don't have weight to lose.

Originally Posted by teaser

<...snip...>
Incidentally this is also how Atkins worked for me. Carefully reintroducing higher carb foods, realizing they sucked at least for me, and moving on with my life.

Originally Posted by teaser

I always thought of Whole 30 as more of a benevolent trap. You stop doing everything that sucks, and then carefully reintroduce things that suck, and hopefully realize they suck.

Incidentally this is also how Atkins worked for me. Carefully reintroducing higher carb foods, realizing they sucked at least for me, and moving on with my life.

Originally Posted by GRB5111

The Whole30 is an interesting concept, and it's referred to as a program, not a diet. It's really a Paleo "program" that I could easily live with, as it has people avoid for 30 days all dairy, alcohol, grains, legumes, seed oils, and anything with preservatives. It allows fruit and other things I don't eat. The major quibble I have with it is the 30 day period, as this is really the concept of a "diet" that most have. While the word "diet" is not defined this way, but today most think of it as a temporary period of time, almost like a penance, of restricted eating to lose weight, then, it's over. The Whole30 should program should drop the 30. I know people who have had great success with it, then when the 30 days is up, go back to what they were doing before, and surprise (not), the weight goes back to what it was before.

Long-term success is something that I thought a lot about when I first started eating low carb. I was motivated to stay consistent and when results started happening, my motivation was reinforced. There were times early on when I felt like crap, particularly as I was transitioning my energy source to fat burning mode. I made all sorts of plans when away from home to stock up on lc snacks to ensure I didn't go off the deep end. After I felt great doing this WOE, I developed a routine that became a habit, and it really became easy to plan and consume meals. I dropped breakfast, as I no longer was hungry early in the day. I no longer wanted snacks, as I wasn't hungry at various times during the day, sometimes during the whole day.

Today, I admit I have a hard time comprehending how people make it so complicated, but that's exactly what I did in the early periods. It is a major change for many, and to hear "experts" claim a lc approach is unhealthy, or dangerous, or unsustainable is amazing to me, as it's obvious that anyone making these claims has never experienced it themselves. They just know it's bad and advise against it for the sake of others' good health. Just as we were advised to go high carb, low fat, and eat frequently so many years ago. Yep, now they were the visionaries . . .

Originally Posted by Moje

How many successful folks here have managed to keep the weight off long after you deemed your efforts successful and do you stay on a low carb plan or have you ventured beyond and been happy with the results?

I'm asking to debunk what an "anti diet" dietician is claiming, that low carb isn't a successful sustainable way of eating and actually "harms" your system long term.