why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
How many of those studies matched protein intake? I am guessing NONE
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652
Guessing NONE? The studies varied over a wide range of topics. I've researched this stuff for years, unfortunately I did not save those links for this one glorious post. But with all human studies you can usually find a study to counter every argument. You can argue with science if you want.
BTW, do you have a link for a study that matched protein intake AND overall calories (or adjusted for BMR)? I would love to read it, no matter what the outcome of the research showed
I don't have access to it right now...but there was one that came out showing that there was zero difference between High Protein vs LCHF diet....I don't have the specifics right now, but I can try to dig it up ...
Much appreciated. I do love learning
I don't have access to the full article but there is the link and the basics...pretty interesting...
food for thought anyway...
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.
this is where i take issue.. its all about low carb high protein and not about low carb high fat. those who are at ketogenic levels of low carb are generally/should also be eating high fat..which is not covered by this study.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Firm believer that 86.89% (made that up) of the people on these boards don't understand what CICO means and conflate it with a way of eating.
I thought CICO was an English singer who was on x factor. But then I remembered, it was CHICO.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
0 -
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/CICO
Acronym
Definition
CICO Coffee In, Coffee Out
CICO Check In Check Out
CICO Combat Information Center Officer
CICO Conference of International Catholic Organisations
CICO Crap In Crap Out
CICO Cash in Cash Out
CICO Content Indicator Code Officer
CICO Coin in Coin Out (gaming machines)
CICO Community Information Centre of Ottawa (Canada)
Anything?0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
How many of those studies matched protein intake? I am guessing NONE
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652
Guessing NONE? The studies varied over a wide range of topics. I've researched this stuff for years, unfortunately I did not save those links for this one glorious post. But with all human studies you can usually find a study to counter every argument. You can argue with science if you want.
BTW, do you have a link for a study that matched protein intake AND overall calories (or adjusted for BMR)? I would love to read it, no matter what the outcome of the research showed
I don't have access to it right now...but there was one that came out showing that there was zero difference between High Protein vs LCHF diet....I don't have the specifics right now, but I can try to dig it up ...
Much appreciated. I do love learning
I don't have access to the full article but there is the link and the basics...pretty interesting...
food for thought anyway...
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.
this is where i take issue.. its all about low carb high protein and not about low carb high fat. those who are at ketogenic levels of low carb are generally/should also be eating high fat..which is not covered by this study.
good point, I missed that..
as I have never down keto, what do they usually set protein at?0 -
Circumcised Idiots Concentrated in Oligarchies0
-
blktngldhrt wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
How many of those studies matched protein intake? I am guessing NONE
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652
Guessing NONE? The studies varied over a wide range of topics. I've researched this stuff for years, unfortunately I did not save those links for this one glorious post. But with all human studies you can usually find a study to counter every argument. You can argue with science if you want.
BTW, do you have a link for a study that matched protein intake AND overall calories (or adjusted for BMR)? I would love to read it, no matter what the outcome of the research showed
I don't have access to it right now...but there was one that came out showing that there was zero difference between High Protein vs LCHF diet....I don't have the specifics right now, but I can try to dig it up ...
Much appreciated. I do love learning
I don't have access to the full article but there is the link and the basics...pretty interesting...
food for thought anyway...
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.
this is where i take issue.. its all about low carb high protein and not about low carb high fat. those who are at ketogenic levels of low carb are generally/should also be eating high fat..which is not covered by this study.
There are too many numbers and letters this early in the morning but I would assume NPLC would mean the fat ratio would be high, like keto ratios would be. Just throwing that out there.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
How many of those studies matched protein intake? I am guessing NONE
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652
Guessing NONE? The studies varied over a wide range of topics. I've researched this stuff for years, unfortunately I did not save those links for this one glorious post. But with all human studies you can usually find a study to counter every argument. You can argue with science if you want.
BTW, do you have a link for a study that matched protein intake AND overall calories (or adjusted for BMR)? I would love to read it, no matter what the outcome of the research showed
I don't have access to it right now...but there was one that came out showing that there was zero difference between High Protein vs LCHF diet....I don't have the specifics right now, but I can try to dig it up ...
Much appreciated. I do love learning
I don't have access to the full article but there is the link and the basics...pretty interesting...
food for thought anyway...
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.
this is where i take issue.. its all about low carb high protein and not about low carb high fat. those who are at ketogenic levels of low carb are generally/should also be eating high fat..which is not covered by this study.
good point, I missed that..
as I have never down keto, what do they usually set protein at?
I'm at 20-25% protein..so approximately 74-100g depending on my calorie intake.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
How many of those studies matched protein intake? I am guessing NONE
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652
Guessing NONE? The studies varied over a wide range of topics. I've researched this stuff for years, unfortunately I did not save those links for this one glorious post. But with all human studies you can usually find a study to counter every argument. You can argue with science if you want.
BTW, do you have a link for a study that matched protein intake AND overall calories (or adjusted for BMR)? I would love to read it, no matter what the outcome of the research showed
I don't have access to it right now...but there was one that came out showing that there was zero difference between High Protein vs LCHF diet....I don't have the specifics right now, but I can try to dig it up ...
Much appreciated. I do love learning
I don't have access to the full article but there is the link and the basics...pretty interesting...
food for thought anyway...
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.
this is where i take issue.. its all about low carb high protein and not about low carb high fat. those who are at ketogenic levels of low carb are generally/should also be eating high fat..which is not covered by this study.
There are too many numbers and letters this early in the morning but I would assume NPLC would mean the fat ratio would be high, like keto ratios would be. Just throwing that out there.
N- normal.. whatever that means.0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
How many of those studies matched protein intake? I am guessing NONE
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652
Guessing NONE? The studies varied over a wide range of topics. I've researched this stuff for years, unfortunately I did not save those links for this one glorious post. But with all human studies you can usually find a study to counter every argument. You can argue with science if you want.
BTW, do you have a link for a study that matched protein intake AND overall calories (or adjusted for BMR)? I would love to read it, no matter what the outcome of the research showed
I don't have access to it right now...but there was one that came out showing that there was zero difference between High Protein vs LCHF diet....I don't have the specifics right now, but I can try to dig it up ...
Much appreciated. I do love learning
I don't have access to the full article but there is the link and the basics...pretty interesting...
food for thought anyway...
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.
this is where i take issue.. its all about low carb high protein and not about low carb high fat. those who are at ketogenic levels of low carb are generally/should also be eating high fat..which is not covered by this study.
good point, I missed that..
as I have never down keto, what do they usually set protein at?
Fat has to be over 70%, so protein would be <30%0 -
I have PCOS and when I tried just CICO I continued gaining weight. Once I was put on metformin and restricted carbs I lost weight like crazy even though my calorie intake actually went up. I realize the typical person without a hormone issue going on probably wouldn't have the same issues that I did.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Isn't that what I said? Are you meaning to agree with me?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Isn't that what I said? Are you meaning to agree with me?
It is what we said.
I also think the SAD is no longer as standard as most here tend to think it is0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full0 -
Low carber here! I totally, firmly believe that CICO still applies. I only eat low card because of a medical condition I have. However I will say that the higher fat/protein that I eat does help me stay full. I think science applies with weight loss, but different diets work for different people when it comes to making them satisfied and finding a plan they can eat forever.0
-
blktngldhrt wrote: »http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
There you go OP. You could learn a lot from some of these studies.
There is a study (which atm I am unable to find), that had subjects lie in bed for 6 weeks (I think 6 weeks) eating their BMR calories, in high protein vs high carb, the high protein people lost less muscle and gained less fat.
Think about it like this, CICO is the gold standard, but what the calories come from still matters. Dieting and working out while eating 2000 cal of Twinkies vs 2000 cal of steak is going to have a significant impact in body composition which has a cumulative effect in continuing weight loss
How many of those studies matched protein intake? I am guessing NONE
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100652
Guessing NONE? The studies varied over a wide range of topics. I've researched this stuff for years, unfortunately I did not save those links for this one glorious post. But with all human studies you can usually find a study to counter every argument. You can argue with science if you want.
BTW, do you have a link for a study that matched protein intake AND overall calories (or adjusted for BMR)? I would love to read it, no matter what the outcome of the research showed
I don't have access to it right now...but there was one that came out showing that there was zero difference between High Protein vs LCHF diet....I don't have the specifics right now, but I can try to dig it up ...
Much appreciated. I do love learning
I don't have access to the full article but there is the link and the basics...pretty interesting...
food for thought anyway...
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.
this is where i take issue.. its all about low carb high protein and not about low carb high fat. those who are at ketogenic levels of low carb are generally/should also be eating high fat..which is not covered by this study.
good point, I missed that..
as I have never down keto, what do they usually set protein at?
Fat has to be over 70%, so protein would be <30%
That would be about correct. Keto is I'd say at least 65% but probably more like 70-75%, protein around 20-25%, and then carbs around 5% MAYBE max 10%. Keto is more low carb than say what your ratios look like eating Atkins.
0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
Fat is highly dense in calories. I am just saying you get "less food" when you do high fat diets.
Gothca yes. I would agree with that.
0 -
Sorry to be such a newb at this but what does CICO stand for?0
-
I found the attached article interesting.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html/
Actual Study
http://static.squarespace.com/static/51c5f732e4b04f9194666404/t/525923a5e4b018d7238089cf/1381573541951/Carol_Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage.pdf0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.0 -
I went on the grapefruit diet and it restricted carbs. I ate grapefruit for breakfast, lunch and dinner along with tons of eggs and bacon for breakfast. Lunch and dinner consisted of salad and/or vegetables and any kind of meat cooked any kind of way. I lost 10 pounds on this diet. I gained it all back as soon as I went back to eating like a normal person. I love carbs and am a believer in CICO no matter what you eat!!1 I hate eggs to this day!!!!0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Isn't that what I said? Are you meaning to agree with me?
Yes I agree. It seemed some people think most low carbers just count grams of carbs or no counting at all but that yes, macros are really a big discussion on the LCHF forums.
0 -
Lyle's comments are spot onMrCoolGrim wrote: »
0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
Read the final line of the post I quoted...
"Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF."
Most seem to "think" it.0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
Read the final line of the post I quoted...
"Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF."
Most seem to "think" it.
Well, many people do feel full on LCHF.
That isn't the same thing as saying, "no one ever feels full on anything else". Two different ideas.0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
Read the final line of the post I quoted...
"Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF."
Most seem to "think" it.
not saying only low carbers feel full at all but its an actual benefit for me..because..medical condition. i do not feel full without lowering my carbs. i am constantly hungry if i eat carbs. low blood sugar can do that to a person. so, different for everyone.0 -
Well OP said he is not talking about low carbers for medical reasons (which is me) but I understand why people may think that CICO doesn't work or it seems like it doesnt but only if they have a medical reason- as I have experienced this
But I don't claim that CICO doesn't work.... even for me
and I would NEVER say that low carb is the only way or even a good way to go (I hate it)
the only reason I do it is cause my nutritionist and doc say I have to...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions