Low carb dieters!
Options
Replies
-
jennibean40 wrote: »www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets
direct quote from the article you posted:
for example, POUNDS LOST (Preventing Overweight Using Novel Dietary Strategies), a two-year head-to-head trial comparing different weight loss strategies, found that healthy diets that varied in the proportions of different macronutrients (carbohydrates, protein and fats) worked equally well in the long run, and that there was no speed advantage for one diet over another0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »According to my research ketosis (the state the body enters during low carb diets) burns almost solely body fat... and since i dont restrict calories i still maintain normal energy and function levels. Have you had different experiences?
You're burning more DIETARY fat.
http://sigmanutrition.com/eat-more-fat-burn-more-fat-myth-magic-or-metabolic-advantage/
OP since you decided not to read this study here is the conclusion …
Conclusion
When we oxidise fatty acids we can generate ATP which can be used for energy production. In essence, this process is the fat-burning process we hear about. Taking available fat and using it up for the purposes of energy production.
Sounds good so far. So where’s the problem?
Just because we’re burning more fat, does that mean we are burning the fat that is stored in our fat tissue?
On a high-fat diet or after we eat a high-fat meal, we are going to break the triglycerides in food down to fatty acids and glycerol. We’ll then have a ton of fatty acids readily available to be used for energy production. Additionally we know that we can oxidise intramuscular triglycerides (fat stored between muscle) and fat in VLDL particles.
[Am I losing anyone? If so don’t worry, this will become clear as we go through the post. Don’t give up on me now! Power through! If you can get this, it will make a huge difference to your ability to evaluate different dietary approaches for fat loss]
So all that fat we’re burning is the fatty acids in the bloodstream. And when we eat more fat, we have more of it in the bloodstream.
Meaning, if “burning more fat” simply equates to oxidizing more fatty acids then of course we should be burning more fat when we eat more fat… there’s a whole load more of it available, right?
I mean that makes sense doesn’t it?
So yes, you could say we are “burning” more fat. But the question really is this:
What does this mean in relation to body fat levels?
This is where things get a bit more interesting and very nuanced.
At first glance, at least from as much as I’ve been able to conclude so far from the available evidence, is that the fat we’re burning is coming from the increased fatty acids made available to us from out meals unless… yep, you guessed it, we’re in a calorie deficit.
I can’t seen evidence of any potential mechanism by which it is possible to lose body fat without having a negative energy imbalance (i.e. expenditure is higher than input). There are hypotheses of there being a “metabolic advantage” when in ketosis for example, but that’s far from accepted.
But even beyond all that, even when fat IS released from fat cells, that still doesn’t necessarily mean we are actually losing fat.
Does this mean high-fat diets have no use in a fat loss situation then? Absolutely not.
I think high-fat diets (N.B. provided carbohydrates are low) can be an excellent tool for certain people. And I’ve talked about this previously. It really does come down to the metabolic state of the individual. In those with insulin resistance and blood sugar dysregulation then a low-carb/high-fat diet (LCHF) can be therapeutic and help return some insulin sensitivity, in turn putting the person in a better position to potentially lose fat.
BUT (there’s always a but in nutrition) if we look at what actually happens in the process of fat and carbohydrate metabolism it starts to become clearer that fat loss really will be determined by caloric intake, with most other variables being equal (including protein intake, which is often forgotten about in studies).
So yes, while you burn more fat on a high-fat diet, you have more of it to burn.0 -
0
-
jennibean40 wrote: »
sorry the "diet doctor" is not a peer reviewed source0 -
Go here:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
For some reason people have issues with anyone who isn't exactly like them.
X2, please join those of us who eat low carb on the group JPW1990 linked to.0 -
for weight loss, heart health
September 2, 2014
Keith Brannon
Phone: 504-862-8789
kbrannon@tulane.edu
Low-carbohydrate diets are better for losing weight and protecting the heart than low-fat diets, according to a new Tulane University study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The study followed 148 obese participants who were randomly assigned to either a low-carb diet, consuming less than 40 grams of digestible carbs per day, or a low-fat diet, consuming less than 30 percent of daily calories from fat. Researchers gave both groups dietary advice, but neither had strict calorie or exercise goals.
After a year, the low-carb group lost an average of 7.7 pounds more than the low-fat group. The blood levels of certain fats that are predictors of heart disease risk also improved more in the low-carb group. While low-density lipoprotein cholesterol for both groups were about the same, the low-carb group saw a spike in so-called “good” HDL cholesterol and a decline in the ratio of bad to good cholesterol.
The results challenge the perception that low-fat diets are always better for the heart, said lead author Dr. Lydia Bazzano, Lynda B. and H. Leighton Steward Professor in Nutrition Research at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.
“Over the years, the message has always been to go low-fat,” Bazzano said. “Yet we found those on a low-carb diet had significantly greater decreases in estimated 10-year risk for heart disease after six and 12 months than the low-fat group.”
The results don’t mean it’s OK to binge on butter. While the low-carb dieters got 41 percent of their calories from fat, most were healthy monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats like olive or canola oil. The group only got 13 percent of calories from saturated fats like butter.
“It’s not a license to go back to the butter, but it does show that even high-fat diets – if they are high in the right fats – can be healthy and help you lose weight,” Bazzano says.0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »for weight loss, heart health
September 2, 2014
Keith Brannon
Phone: xxx-xxx-xxxx
[snip]
Low-carbohydrate diets are better for losing weight and protecting the heart than low-fat diets, according to a new Tulane University study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The study followed 148 obese participants who were randomly assigned to either a low-carb diet, consuming less than 40 grams of digestible carbs per day, or a low-fat diet, consuming less than 30 percent of daily calories from fat. Researchers gave both groups dietary advice, but neither had strict calorie or exercise goals.
The bolded part is the main issue with this study.
Calories were not controlled. Low-fat vs. low-carb means absolutely nothing. Fat is satiating, so likely someone on a low-fat diet will be more hungry than someone who is consuming a healthy amount of fat and inadvertently consume more calories. This does nothing to prove that LCHF is better for health or weight loss than calorie-counting and eating a balanced diet.
Also, pretty sure you're not supposed to post contact info like phone numbers/email addresses them. I took them out of the quote but you may want to edit them out of your response.
0 -
we can play this game all night..
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938412002806
Abstract
Background
‘Low-carb’ diets have been suggested to be effective in body weight (BW) management. However, these diets are relatively high in protein as well.
Objective
To unravel whether body-weight loss and weight-maintenance depends on the high-protein or the ‘low-carb’ component of the diet.
Design
Body-weight (BW), fat mass (FM), blood- and urine-parameters of 132 participants (age = 50 ± 12 yr; BW = 107 ± 20 kg; BMI = 37 ± 6 kg/m2; FM = 47.5 ± 11.9 kg) were compared after 3 and 12 months between four energy-restricted diets with 33% of energy requirement for the first 3 months, and 67% for the last 9 months: normal-protein normal-carbohydrate (NPNC), normal-protein low-carbohydrate (NPLC); high-protein normal-carbohydrate (HPNC), high-protein low-carbohydrate (HPLC); 24 h N-analyses confirmed daily protein intakes for the normal-protein diets of 0.7 ± 0.1 and for the high-protein diets of 1.1 ± 0.2 g/kg BW (p < 0.01).
Results
BW and FM decreased over 3 months (p < 0.001): HP (− 14.1 ± 4 kg; − 11.9 ± 1.7 kg) vs. NP (− 11.5 ± 4 kg; − 9.3 ± 0.7 kg) (p < 0.001); LC (− 13.5 ± 4 kg; − 11.0 ± 1.2 kg) vs. NC (− 12.3 ± 3 kg; − 10.3 ± 1.1 kg) (ns). Diet × time interaction showed HPLC (− 14.7 ± 5 kg; − 11.9 ± 1.6 kg) vs. HPNC (− 13.8 ± 3 kg; − 11.9 ± 1.8 kg) (ns); NPLC (− 12.2 ± 4 kg; − 10.0 ± 0.8 kg) vs. NPNC (− 10.7 ± 4 kg; − 8.6 ± 0.7 kg) (ns); HPLC vs. NPLC (p < 0.001); HPNC vs. NPNC (p < 0.001). Decreases over 12 months (p < 0.001) showed HP (− 12.8 ± 4 kg; − 9.1 ± 0.8 kg) vs. NP (− 8.9 ± 3 kg; − 7.7 ± 0.6 kg) (p < 0.001); LC (− 10.6 ± 4 kg; − 8.3 ± 0.7 kg) vs. NC (11.1 ± 3 kg; 9.3 ± 0.7 kg) (ns). Diet × time interaction showed HPLC (− 11.6 ± 5 kg ; − 8.2 ± 0.7 kg) vs. HPNC (− 14.1 ± 4 kg; − 10.0 ± 0.9 kg) (ns); NPNC (− 8.2 ± 3 kg; − 6.7 ± 0.6 kg) vs. NPLC (− 9.7 ± 3 kg; − 8.5 ± 0.7 kg) (ns); HPLC vs. NPLC (p < 0.01); HPNC vs. NPNC (p < 0.01). HPNC vs. all other diets reduced diastolic blood pressure more. Relationships between changes in BW, FM, FFM or metabolic parameters and energy percentage of fat in the diet were not statistically significant. Metabolic profile and fat-free-mass were improved following weight-loss.
Conclusion
Body-weight loss and weight-maintenance depends on the high-protein, but not on the ‘low-carb’ component of the diet, while it is unrelated to the concomitant fat-content of the diet.
Highlights
► The research unmasks the success of ‘low-carb’ diets for body weight management. ► Similar protein contents, similar body-weight management irrespective of carbohydrate content. ► High- vs. normal-protein diets show the favorable effects on body-weight management. ► A high-protein normal-carbohydrate diet reduces diastolic blood pressure more.
0 -
However, a new study shows that to lose weight more efficiently, cutting carbs is a better strategy. The new study, presented at the American Cancer Research Society meeting on December 8, found that a low carb diet, even just two days a week, was more effective than a low calorie diet to lose weight and lower insulin. Michelle Harvie, a dietician at University Hospital in England, tracked 115 overweight women. They were separated into three groups and asked to follow either a low calorie, low carb diet for two days per week, a low-carb diet for two days per week, or a low calorie diet every day. She then tracked their progress four months later. After the four months, not only had more women dropped out of the seven-day-a-week diet group than the other two groups, but they had lost less weight than the other two groups. On average, the low calorie diet group lost five pounds versus nine pounds with the other two low carb groups. Low carb diets also had another benefit for women. It significantly lowered their insulin levels (by 18 percent as opposed to only four percent for the low calorie group). Lowering insulin is an effective preventative measure for breast cancer.
This is an excerpt from mens health.
0 -
Results
BW and FM decreased over 3 months (p < 0.001): HP (− 14.1 ± 4 kg; − 11.9 ± 1.7 kg) vs. NP (− 11.5 ± 4 kg; − 9.3 ± 0.7 kg) (p < 0.001); LC (− 13.5 ± 4 kg; − 11.0 ± 1.2 kg) vs. NC (− 12.3 ± 3 kg; − 10.3 ± 1.1 kg) (ns). Diet × time interaction showed HPLC (− 14.7 ± 5 kg; − 11.9 ± 1.6 kg) vs. HPNC (− 13.8 ± 3 kg; − 11.9 ± 1.8 kg) (ns); NPLC (− 12.2 ± 4 kg; − 10.0 ± 0.8 kg) vs. NPNC (− 10.7 ± 4 kg; − 8.6 ± 0.7 kg) (ns); HPLC vs. NPLC (p < 0.001); HPNC vs. NPNC (p < 0.001). Decreases over 12 months (p < 0.001) showed HP (− 12.8 ± 4 kg; − 9.1 ± 0.8 kg) vs. NP (− 8.9 ± 3 kg; − 7.7 ± 0.6 kg) (p < 0.001); LC (− 10.6 ± 4 kg; − 8.3 ± 0.7 kg) vs. NC (11.1 ± 3 kg; 9.3 ± 0.7 kg) (ns). Diet × time interaction showed HPLC (− 11.6 ± 5 kg ; − 8.2 ± 0.7 kg) vs. HPNC (− 14.1 ± 4 kg; − 10.0 ± 0.9 kg) (ns); NPNC (− 8.2 ± 3 kg; − 6.7 ± 0.6 kg) vs. NPLC (− 9.7 ± 3 kg; − 8.5 ± 0.7 kg) (ns); HPLC vs. NPLC (p < 0.01); HPNC vs. NPNC (p < 0.01). HPNC vs. all other diets reduced diastolic blood pressure more.
Its like being slapped in the face, BY SCIENCE!
Also thank you for posting that, apparently sciencedirect doesn't like me right now, I've been trying to get that page to load since the link was first posted.0 -
compgeek812 wrote: »Results
BW and FM decreased over 3 months (p < 0.001): HP (− 14.1 ± 4 kg; − 11.9 ± 1.7 kg) vs. NP (− 11.5 ± 4 kg; − 9.3 ± 0.7 kg) (p < 0.001); LC (− 13.5 ± 4 kg; − 11.0 ± 1.2 kg) vs. NC (− 12.3 ± 3 kg; − 10.3 ± 1.1 kg) (ns). Diet × time interaction showed HPLC (− 14.7 ± 5 kg; − 11.9 ± 1.6 kg) vs. HPNC (− 13.8 ± 3 kg; − 11.9 ± 1.8 kg) (ns); NPLC (− 12.2 ± 4 kg; − 10.0 ± 0.8 kg) vs. NPNC (− 10.7 ± 4 kg; − 8.6 ± 0.7 kg) (ns); HPLC vs. NPLC (p < 0.001); HPNC vs. NPNC (p < 0.001). Decreases over 12 months (p < 0.001) showed HP (− 12.8 ± 4 kg; − 9.1 ± 0.8 kg) vs. NP (− 8.9 ± 3 kg; − 7.7 ± 0.6 kg) (p < 0.001); LC (− 10.6 ± 4 kg; − 8.3 ± 0.7 kg) vs. NC (11.1 ± 3 kg; 9.3 ± 0.7 kg) (ns). Diet × time interaction showed HPLC (− 11.6 ± 5 kg ; − 8.2 ± 0.7 kg) vs. HPNC (− 14.1 ± 4 kg; − 10.0 ± 0.9 kg) (ns); NPNC (− 8.2 ± 3 kg; − 6.7 ± 0.6 kg) vs. NPLC (− 9.7 ± 3 kg; − 8.5 ± 0.7 kg) (ns); HPLC vs. NPLC (p < 0.01); HPNC vs. NPNC (p < 0.01). HPNC vs. all other diets reduced diastolic blood pressure more.
Its like being slapped in the face, BY SCIENCE!
Also thank you for posting that, apparently sciencedirect doesn't like me right now, I've been trying to get that page to load since the link was first posted.
no problem…
I can't access the full article though …just the abstract….0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »
This is an excerpt from mens health.
This is like getting sex tips from Cosmo. (Aka, a bad idea).0 -
I can't maintain a calorie deficit for long without eating a low carb diet. For that matter, I can't even eat at maintenance without eating low carb; my appetite is insatiable if I eat too many carbs. I'm assuming that indicates some sort of insulin resistance but I really don't know and honestly don't care. Low carb works for me and is sustainable so that's what I do.
Don't get caught up in trying to justify yourself to the people who pounce on these sorts of threads; they don't understand and never will. If it works for you let that be good enough. Best wishes.
1 -
Im still not seeing what isnt coming across for you when i say..
A) i tried a restricted calorie diet -with healthy veggie lean meat whole grain choices- and lost barely anything.
i restricted carbs and UPPED my calories and lost 20lbs...
Pretty self explanatory. I never said weight loss COULDNT be achieved on low calorie alone. Simply that low carb has been more effective for me. Not to mention all the health benefits from a lower carb diet.
Your entitled to diet how you want but regardless of your opinion on the matter low carb is a legitimate form of weight loss. By all means keep posting articles and research but the wind blows both ways. Plenty of drs and institutes back each side.
But the best way to find out is by doing it yourself. I invite any who dont think it will work to give it a try yourself, instead of standing behind someone elses words.0 -
Thank you @AlabasterVerve0
-
OP, do you seriously believe that people cannot lose weight eating at a calorie deficit as long as carbs are included in the diet? If so, we have found a solution to starvation and we should probably make sure it is shared worldwide. If you can really maintain your weight just by eating some grain - - even though you are at deficit - - scientists should probably study you to determine why your body works in this way. People are dying of starvation unnecessarily.0
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I can't maintain a calorie deficit for long without eating a low carb diet. For that matter, I can't even eat at maintenance without eating low carb; my appetite is insatiable if I eat too many carbs. I'm assuming that indicates some sort of insulin resistance but I really don't know and honestly don't care. Low carb works for me and is sustainable so that's what I do.
Don't get caught up in trying to justify yourself to the people who pounce on these sorts of threads; they don't understand and never will. If it works for you let that be good enough. Best wishes.
Hey Alabaster, I can understand where you are coming from. A lot of times we look at what worked for us in the broad sense and figure, "well, it worked for me, it'll work for you", but without understanding the 'why', using anecdotal evidence instead of empirical data can be very misleading.
I spent a long time practicing various low-carb diets with several other people who were all trying to lose weight, to various degrees of success. What I often found with those of us who had any degree of success from low-carb diets was that there were other factors which contributed to the weight loss but were being unfairly attributed to practicing a low-carb lifestyle. When I eventually began digging through the wins and losses of our little group I found that there was no actual correlation between a physiological response to a low-carb diet and weight loss. The greatest factor for weight loss was a psychological response to the lower carb lifestyle. Many of us who went low-carb cut out a lot of high calorie low satiety foods which we consumed regularly and swapped them with lower calorie options. For others, being low carb made them actually think about what they were eating for once and they actually bothered to read a nutrition label for once (and not just to loudly exclaim 'why does x need dihydrogen monoxide, why can't they keep that crap out of our food!') and subsequently chose foods that were less calorie dense.
There were several other reasons of which I could continue to blather for quite some time (inaccurate calorie counting, "I'm better than you" mentality) but suffice it to say all the wins were ultimately attributable to consuming less calories than were expended.
If you are practicing a low carb lifestyle and think its working for you, fine. Go enjoy yourself avoiding an entire category of delicious foods in pursuit of a lower number on the all powerful scale. But you have to remember, many of us here once were obese. In our countless struggles to lose weight we've seen every snake oil peddler there is and having tried our fair share of them, know the pain of being lied to so someone can sell another book/shake/bar/cleanse/seminar. So if you and @jennibean40 feel persecuted or belittled or pounced upon or unfairly assessed, remember that many of us want whats best for the other members. We don't want to see anyone else go through the same false starts and yo-yoing that we did.
So you can practice low carb, you can set every carb in your house on fire and laugh maniacally on top of the ashes, but if you want to come into the forums and take a stance that others might assume is the correct way to do something, you better bring facts, and articles from peer-reviewed studies.0 -
No way I would lose weight consuming that much calories and lose weight.jennibean40 wrote: »I maintain usually around 1000-1200 calories in my usual day. Combined with workout i lost 20lbs using this method.. in about 2 months.jennibean40 wrote: »The best way ive found to drop lbs without pills or starving! Anyone else use this method? Interested in ideas, recipes, and success stories!
Yup. Low carbs is what I do, my body feels a lot better without that crap.
But it taste so goooooood.
0 -
I did keto (LCHF) for months and I do not find it sustainable. When you start on the diet you loose a ton of water and you need to drink a lot of broth to avoid constipation. I also gave me irregular periods and I wouldn't recommend it long term.The other annoying thing is the minute you have a cheat you gain a lot of water back and it takes about 2-3 days till everything comes back to normal.
I find that I can achieve similar results by doing one or two 24 hour fast a week, without having to limit my carbs under 50 g daily.
However, I do limit my carbs to less than 150g on most days and I avoid transformed food as much as possible. For me it still helps me limiting my hunger and I can eat fruit, honey and starch back and I eat grains usually once a week.
On the other hand, I'm a bit tired of the whole a calorie is a calorie thing. Sure to loose weight you need to be in deficit. You can definitely do the twinkie diet and loose weight. But shouldn't we eat also for health? I don't care if people eat a bit of transformed food everyday, but getting good quality protein, fat and fruit and vegetables everyday is important.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions