to carb or not too carb?

lindsey1979

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

I think that is what I said -- those with good insulin sensitivity lost more with more carbs. And those with insulin resistance lost more with less carbs. My exact words were:

The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs.

and

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

Generally, the group with diabetes and prediabetes would fall into the insulin resistant group, but I'd have to go back and see what exactly was the A1C cut off.

What part isn't quite jiving for you?

lemurcat12

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.

I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)

lindsey1979

lemurcat12 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.

I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)

Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.

In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.

Azuriaz

lindsey1979 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.

I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)

Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.

In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.

This x1000.

lemurcat12

Azuriaz wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.

I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)

Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.

In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.

This x1000.

Yes, I agree with that.

(Which is why none of us can answer OP's question. And recommending that everyone lower carbs is bad advice.)

Need2Exerc1se

goldthistime wrote: »

Carbs. I like them and I like barely feeling like I'm on a diet.

I used to be a little annoyed when people would say "This isn't a diet, it's a lifestyle". I would think, "Oh really? You plan on maintaining a calorie deficit the rest of your life? IT'S A DIET." But my deficit is set so low now that it IS more like a "rest of my life" eating style than it is a diet. So I am practising those good habits, and I will have to change very little when I get to maintenance. To me it makes more sense than switching to low carb for a period of time and then having to figure out how to reincorporate carbs without regaining weight.

This is how I'm doing it too. Small deficit and slow loss and I don't expect to have to change much of anything when I get to goal.

lindsey1979

TurnANewLeaf wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

I think that is what I said -- those with good insulin sensitivity lost more with more carbs. And those with insulin resistance lost more with less carbs. My exact words were:

The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs.

and

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

Generally, the group with diabetes and prediabetes would fall into the insulin resistant group, but I'd have to go back and see what exactly was the A1C cut off.

What part isn't quite jiving for you?

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Let's see if we can all learn to change the dynamic to one that is more positive and respectful...I have hope for the MFP community.

What? What is wrong with asking Psulemon what part isn't quite jiving for him?

I'm trying to understand what exactly he had an issue with relative to what I said in the study because to me, there doesn't seem to be any disconnect or contradiction and yet there seems to be some to him.

lemurcat12

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

goldthistime wrote: »

Carbs. I like them and I like barely feeling like I'm on a diet.

I used to be a little annoyed when people would say "This isn't a diet, it's a lifestyle". I would think, "Oh really? You plan on maintaining a calorie deficit the rest of your life? IT'S A DIET." But my deficit is set so low now that it IS more like a "rest of my life" eating style than it is a diet. So I am practising those good habits, and I will have to change very little when I get to maintenance. To me it makes more sense than switching to low carb for a period of time and then having to figure out how to reincorporate carbs without regaining weight.

This is how I'm doing it too. Small deficit and slow loss and I don't expect to have to change much of anything when I get to goal.

Yes, basically this.

Azuriaz

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Azuriaz wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.

I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)

Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.

In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.

This x1000.

Yes, I agree with that.

(Which is why none of us can answer OP's question. And recommending that everyone lower carbs is bad advice.)

Nothing wrong with saying what works for each of us, though. I found out about low carb from the internet success stories and it saved me from backsliding my way up the scale to where I started. Doesn't mean it will do that for everyone, but it's out there for consideration, just like every other diet/way of eating. (Except the ones that can kill you, of course!)

Need2Exerc1se

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Traveler120 wrote: »

Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.

Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?

Track exercise? The forums? The friends?

While it can be used to track macros, you can also remove all macros from the list of things being counted so it's no more a macro counting site than it is a micro counting site.

Okay, while I understand that there are other uses for the site, I guess I don't understand why someone would come into the forums and question why others would find it helpful to track macros and/or calories.

I don't understand that either. No more than I understand why someone would question why someone would be here if they don't want to track calories/macros.

lemurcat12

Azuriaz wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Azuriaz wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.

I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)

Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.

In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.

This x1000.

Yes, I agree with that.

(Which is why none of us can answer OP's question. And recommending that everyone lower carbs is bad advice.)

Nothing wrong with saying what works for each of us, though. I found out about low carb from the internet success stories and it saved me from backsliding my way up the scale to where I started. Doesn't mean it will do that for everyone, but it's out there for consideration, just like every other diet/way of eating. (Except the ones that can kill you, of course!)

Yeah, I agree -- I just think OP needs to give more information to get a helpful response.

If someone is interested in trying low carb or thinks that way of eating sounds appealing or wants to experiment with it due to appetite issues, I always think it's worth a try. But I wouldn't tell someone that 40% carbs work for me, so they should do that -- people are different. Similarly, I dislike it when others say that a newbie must cut carbs or do low carb (not saying you were doing that here).

Azuriaz

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Azuriaz wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Azuriaz wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.

I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)

Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.

In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.

This x1000.

Yes, I agree with that.

(Which is why none of us can answer OP's question. And recommending that everyone lower carbs is bad advice.)

Nothing wrong with saying what works for each of us, though. I found out about low carb from the internet success stories and it saved me from backsliding my way up the scale to where I started. Doesn't mean it will do that for everyone, but it's out there for consideration, just like every other diet/way of eating. (Except the ones that can kill you, of course!)

Yeah, I agree -- I just think OP needs to give more information to get a helpful response.

If someone is interested in trying low carb or thinks that way of eating sounds appealing or wants to experiment with it due to appetite issues, I always think it's worth a try. But I wouldn't tell someone that 40% carbs work for me, so they should do that -- people are different. Similarly, I dislike it when others say that a newbie must cut carbs or do low carb (not saying you were doing that here).

True. For everyone who can afford it, a dietician who isn't a member of either the heart healthy whole grain cult or the paleo/keto cult would be ideal, if possibly hard to find. In other words, an open-minded professional who can do a professional assessment.

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

Traveler120 wrote: »

Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.

Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?

Track exercise? The forums? The friends?

While it can be used to track macros, you can also remove all macros from the list of things being counted so it's no more a macro counting site than it is a micro counting site.

Okay, while I understand that there are other uses for the site, I guess I don't understand why someone would come into the forums and question why others would find it helpful to track macros and/or calories.

I don't understand that either. No more than I understand why someone would question why someone would be here if they don't want to track calories/macros.

I only asked him because he seemed to think that tracking macros was a bother and that he had a superior way.

I have friends on my list who don't log. But they also don't try to discourage me from logging and suggest that I should follow some clean-eating woo, either.

SLLRunner

healthyrachel1979 wrote: »

Thoughts?

That is the question?

Me--I carb big time. I've eaten lower carb diets before I I run out of energy pretty quickly. I need carbs for energy for running, ohter cardio, and just moving throughout my life. My diet is about 40 percent carbs.

senecarr

lodro wrote: »

jennifer_417 wrote: »

Unless you have specific health conditions, low carb is totally unnecessary for losing weight.

I hope you're realizing that we're approaching a time when up to 50% of a population may have these specific health issues, sometimes as early as the age of three.

This specific issue? You mean because 50% of the population may have diabetes or pre-diabetes? The recent number saying that comes from recent changes to defining pre-diabetes which involve letting A1C and glucose level signify pre-diabetes. It unfortunately might be over diagnosing because they isn't necessarily enough evidence to say the measure they're using are predictive of being at risk for diabetes. The only early detection that has solid backing is, if I recall from a speaker on the subject, a glucose challenge, but those are procedures that take a fair amount of time, so they're using unproven methods.

lindsey1979

SLLRunner wrote: »

healthyrachel1979 wrote: »

Thoughts?

That is the question?

Me--I carb big time. I've eaten lower carb diets before I I run out of energy pretty quickly. I need carbs for energy for running, ohter cardio, and just moving throughout my life. My diet is about 40 percent carbs.

That's so interesting SLLRunner to see where different people fall on the high/low carb idea. Because in that study, 40% carbs would have put you in the low carb group and 60% carbs would put you in the high carb group. Of course, others consider low carb to be much lower like keto. Such a spectrum.

AlabasterVerve

I can lose weight perfectly fine on any macro ratio but I respond particularly well to eating low carb so that's what I do.

I think I'm probably insulin resistant (undiagnosed) which might account for my experience but I don't know that I am -- or care. I described the change in how I feel eating low carb (compared to a "healthy" moderate carb diet) as miraculous when I first started eating LCHF and nearly four years later I still feel that way.

abetterluke

Miss_Mania wrote: »

I have a low to moderate carb approach. However I don't think it's essential for a weight loss plan. I say do whatever works for you and whatever you can stick with. None of us will have the answers for you.

Pretty much this. It's not that I think it helps or hurts weight loss any for most people. I just tend to eat far too much when it comes to the biggest culprits (pasta, baked goods, etc.)

I still eat bread from time to time.

psuLemon

lindsey1979 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

I think that is what I said -- those with good insulin sensitivity lost more with more carbs. And those with insulin resistance lost more with less carbs. My exact words were:

The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs.

and

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

Generally, the group with diabetes and prediabetes would fall into the insulin resistant group, but I'd have to go back and see what exactly was the A1C cut off.

What part isn't quite jiving for you?

My apologies. . I misread what you wrote. I read it as both group responded better to low carb

MoiAussi93

lindsey1979 wrote: »

TurnANewLeaf wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

lindsey1979 wrote: »

There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.

ObesityResearch Journal wrote:

Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).

Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.


Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.

I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.

I think that is what I said -- those with good insulin sensitivity lost more with more carbs. And those with insulin resistance lost more with less carbs. My exact words were:

The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs.

and

If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.

Generally, the group with diabetes and prediabetes would fall into the insulin resistant group, but I'd have to go back and see what exactly was the A1C cut off.

What part isn't quite jiving for you?

lindsey1979 wrote: »

Let's see if we can all learn to change the dynamic to one that is more positive and respectful...I have hope for the MFP community.

What? What is wrong with asking Psulemon what part isn't quite jiving for him?

I'm trying to understand what exactly he had an issue with relative to what I said in the study because to me, there doesn't seem to be any disconnect or contradiction and yet there seems to be some to him.

Nothing...especially considering that you had it exactly right. What you wrote is basically equivalent to the excerpt he posted. I think perhaps he just misinterpreted something you wrote.