Is cutting carbs an effective weight loss strategy?

stevwil41

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

Weight loss yes - as for a livable lifestyle - absolutely! for me it beats calorie counting hands down.

But everyone is different - try it and if it works for you great stick with, if it doesn't feel comfortable then switch it up for something else.

Exactly! Cutting carbs has been a much more sustainable way for me keep weight off than watching my calories but I'll be the first to admit that it's not for everyone.

Iwishyouwell

NextPage wrote: »

Putting health conditions aside, many people benefit from going "lower" carb because they gained weight eating things like bread, soft drinks, sweets and they find it difficult to eat them in moderation. If you are trying to lose weight cutting out foods you can't eat in moderation makes sense. Personally I have a "thing" for cashews and don't buy them because the bag would be gone in a day. This doesn't mean I decided I need to go low-fat, I always make sure I have alternative healthy choices on hand.

However, I can't imagine going to the extremes of super-low carbs since it restricts too many foods which can get boring over time (super quick for me) and it also makes it challenging to reach micronutrient targets for good health. For example, if you have a lunch that includes beets, raspberries (.5 cup) and % fat greek plain yogurt (.75 cup) you are at 28 carbs and 190 calories with good sources calcium, fibre etc. There are so many good carb choices for weight loss and nutrition (berries, root vegetables, quinoa, beans, legumes etc.) that it doesn't make sense, barring medical reasons, to limit all the choices that nature has to offer and instead restrict yourself to some arbitrary 5% or other extreme low carb standard. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight so why make it complicated or nutritionally lacking. However, I agree that people should feel free to do what they want - just refrain from referring to extreme low-carb and keto as the "one true way" and skip the body chemistry lessons.

Almost every human being in the history of existence has been on a restricted diet consisting of a limited amount of food options, eaten regularly across the entirety of their lives.

This whole idea that humans need incredible variety, and indeed even historically have access to immense variety, is a first world myth.

Iwishyouwell

susie7172 wrote: »

No doubt you'll lose weight. But, you'll only maintain it if you stay low carb.

This is a lie.

susie7172 wrote: »

I'm also not a fan of a diet that says fruits and veggies aren't good, but pork rinds are.

What structured low carb diet "says fruits and veggies aren't good, but pork rinds are"? I'd love to know. My initial experience with low carb back in the day was that I saw a vast increase in my vegetable consumption...and I'm far from a fan of pork rinds.

Robbnva

Atkins diet endorses pork rinds, or used to back in the day

bigd66218

Short term for rapid weight loss, yes I lost 10 lbs. in 9 days. But, to get back to my healthy lifestyle from 12 years ago I can't go long term if I start cycling 100-150 miles a week. You need carbs to fuel the fire otherwise you start burning muscle mass.

PeachyCarol

baconslave wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

BTW, anything under 120g is considered to be a low-carb diet...
So a great many consider 100g to be a low-carb diet.
The SAD is generally 300g and up.
So those doing 100g are low-carb,

I wouldn't think there was a hard and fast definition, but I think of "low carb" as anything that aims at ketosis or really means that you have to cut out foods or limit even foods like fruits and veggies. I also think it's significant that I was able to drop to 100 grams without feeling any kind of loss of energy even initially or "low carb flu." I expect this is individual, though, but if I hadn't been logging I would have had no clue I was eating even that low--it just seemed like a common sense way for me to cut back calories.

With respect to the SAD, I kind of think the comparison is a little distorted, because the average person eating the SAD also eats far more calories. According to wiki, the SAD is 50% carbs (just like MFP's standard goal!), and at 1200 calories (shockingly, the first calorie recommendation I had from MFP) that would have meant 150 carbs. So my doing 100 (and 1250 calories) was hardly as significant a difference, and didn't mean that I was "cutting out a macro," obviously, but focusing on the foods I preferred and found more satiating. Now I eat 1600 calories (or a bit more), so 50% would be 200, and I aim for 140 and am usually below. Eh, no big difference, it's based on personal preference.

(And I respect that your eating choices are too, and work for you.)

I just don't understand the magnitude of the distinctions and the connotational differences (addressing the forum reactions in general), between those who just happen to eat less carbs accidentally while reducing calories, those who drop high carb foods because they don't like them or don't care about them, and those who are purposely following a "low-carb diet". It's a flimsy line to me, while others see it as a bigger deal. Why does it matter so much? It all just looks like a comparison to me between people who just happen to lower their carbs when creating calorie deficit and people who choose to lower their carbs to create calorie deficit. And that isn't a huge enough difference to care about, IMO. Low-carb, if done correctly, IS portion control and calorie deficit. Does it matter if people reduce carbs or not? Maybe I don't get it because I just believe too firmly that it doesn't matter which path you pick, as long as you stay on one long-term, and get there. Which version of "sustainability" people find works for them doesn't matter.

I think the problems come in when you have low carb evangelists who insist one (or both) of two things: carbs are a problem for everyone; low-carbing can overcome the laws of thermogenics.

I've really never seen anyone have an issue with someone who takes the line that they restrict carbs for personal preference but still knows that it's all about CICO.

Paul_Collyer

I reduced mine to around 35% of calories, with fat at 40% and protein 25%. A nice balance, I get many of my carbs and sugar from fruit in the morning, but it's hardly Atkins.

Since changing to this in September with a deficit of around 200kcal ( 1800kcal net a day* ) a day I've lost an average of 0.44kg a week, or pretty much exactly 1lb. That is 2.5x the expected figure of 1lb lost per 3500kcal!

*I burn around 3000kcal a week from running and other activities and eat most of it back, plus I tend to have 1-2 days a week where I don't log and indulge a bit. Exercise calories calculated using a Garmin watch and HRM.