Does CICO result in slower weight loss than low carb?
Replies
-
RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
I'm interested in reading more about that. Got a link?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
I'm interested in reading more about that. Got a link?
I would also like to see the data included in this. I don't consider fiber to be a part of my net carbs, so I would be interested in other parts of the data.0 -
Not the study people are looking for...but related to the low-carb discussion...
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(15)00350-2?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413115003502?showall=trueCalorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity0 -
@senecarr The part you bolded, as I understand, is making that point that body fat is created from excess glucose. If a person has no excess glucose, then they don't get extra body fat.
So here is my understanding of my own results when changing macros without changing calories:
The 3 main energy sources in our body are glucose, glycogen, and fat. Before glycogen or fat is added, it is glucose. Net carbs create a glucose spike. Within a short time, if this glucose is not used, it gets added to glycogen and then to fat. For a sedentary individual, or for someone who is not expending that energy within 1-2 hours of consuming net carbs, some or most of the spike of a high carb meal ends up as body fat. If it doesn't get used quickly and it doesn't replenish glycogen quickly, then it is converted to fat. If this did not happen, then everyone who eats high net carbs would have high blood glucose all the time. The differences in my case are that I take insulin manually to make this happen instead of creating my own (as most do), and that I have to take a lot of insulin to make it work. You will always be using some energy, and glucose is always needed to be available to feed muscles throughout the day even for sedentary individuals. But a big spike that isn't going to be used for several hours just isn't going to stick around... your body will store it instead.
How does one get glucose when on a low carb diet? We still need glucose to live, even when we are not eating carbs to spike blood glucose levels. When we eat protein, it is broken down into individual amino acids. Most amino acids can be used to repair muscles. Protein can also be broken down and converted to blood glucose (through gluconeogenesis). This process takes much more time and there is not glucose spike. It is a slower supply of glucose that doesn't normally cause such high levels that it is removed from blood and stored as body fat. A similar thing happens with dietary fat - it is broken down to become glucose, but it takes a very long time for this to happen and there is no glucose spike from dietary fat. Like dietary protein and dietary fat, body protein (muscle) and body fat can also be converted to blood glucose.
Here is the part that I'm less certain about from a scientific standpoint: Does gluconeogenesis happen if one does not actually need blood glucose to rise? We know that net carbs spike glucose no matter what, and excess glucose goes to fat. But if the body is operating efficiently, then it would not expend effort for gluconeogenesis for any more glucose than is actually necessary, right? I'm not sure, but my theory as to why the low carb diet has been so successful for me is based on a 2-word modification in the known explanation of how this works: protein and fat will be broken down to create glucose as needed. The result of these 2 words is that glucose is not created when not needed and that means there is no extra glucose to be converted into body fat.
0 -
blues4miles wrote: »Not the study people are looking for...but related to the low-carb discussion...
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(15)00350-2?_returnURL=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1550413115003502?showall=trueCalorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity
The 6 day wonder study with no measured fat loss by DEXA and different deficits. We probably need something better than that to answer the question.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
CICO isn't a diet. It's the (very well-supported) idea that if you're eating less calories than you're burning, you'll lose weight, which is true for any diet you're losing weight on, low carb, high carb, or whatever. Were you tracking your activity, and how many calories you ate, when you were doing a low carb diet? If not, then there's not really any way to compare what you're doing now with what you were doing then. If you're not satisfied with your progress, then either move more, or eat less.0
-
snowflake930 wrote: »@Microscopes, seriously? Midwesterner85 has diabetes, both type 1 & type 2. Do you? He has a very serious medical condition that requires monitoring. For people with no medical issues, there is absolutely no reason to eliminate carbs, nor should you. Every diet for weight loss is limiting calories, whether or not they come right out and say so. That is the only way for most people (with no medical issues) to lose weight. Eat less calories than your body burns. Long term benefit for all foods in moderation, no re-learning a new way of eating when you reach your goal weight. You just continue on with what you have been doing and increase your calorie intake to maintenance calories.
How was I supposed to know he had a condition? I guess I could have researched his previous posts.
Thank you for the info though. I appreciate it!0 -
Microscopes wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »@Microscopes, seriously? Midwesterner85 has diabetes, both type 1 & type 2. Do you? He has a very serious medical condition that requires monitoring. For people with no medical issues, there is absolutely no reason to eliminate carbs, nor should you. Every diet for weight loss is limiting calories, whether or not they come right out and say so. That is the only way for most people (with no medical issues) to lose weight. Eat less calories than your body burns. Long term benefit for all foods in moderation, no re-learning a new way of eating when you reach your goal weight. You just continue on with what you have been doing and increase your calorie intake to maintenance calories.
How was I supposed to know he had a condition? I guess I could have researched his previous posts.
Thank you for the info though. I appreciate it!
I put that in the first response to this thread... I'm not hiding anything or even making it hard to find.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »@Microscopes, seriously? Midwesterner85 has diabetes, both type 1 & type 2. Do you? He has a very serious medical condition that requires monitoring. For people with no medical issues, there is absolutely no reason to eliminate carbs, nor should you. Every diet for weight loss is limiting calories, whether or not they come right out and say so. That is the only way for most people (with no medical issues) to lose weight. Eat less calories than your body burns. Long term benefit for all foods in moderation, no re-learning a new way of eating when you reach your goal weight. You just continue on with what you have been doing and increase your calorie intake to maintenance calories.
How was I supposed to know he had a condition? I guess I could have researched his previous posts.
Thank you for the info though. I appreciate it!
I put that in the first response to this thread... I'm not hiding anything or even making it hard to find.
You're right.
I completely missed it and that's my fault.0 -
All low carb diets are good for is losing weight without having to count for people who hate math. It ensures a calorie deficit because it is expensive and less interesting to eat nothing but protein and fat. It also limits your choices, especially when it comes to snack foods. I'd rather count and NOT do LC, tyvm. I lub carbs.0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
I'm interested in reading more about that. Got a link?
I presume he is talking about this:
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eat-like-successful-myfitnesspal-user/0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
I'm interested in reading more about that. Got a link?
I presume he is talking about this:
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eat-like-successful-myfitnesspal-user/
well, interesting, but I have to notice that the successful users are not those "who lost the most weight" but those "within 5% of their stated goal weight at the time the data were pulled".
I also would fall in that category, and haven't lost any weight.
0 -
I think low carb can be faster, or it can be slower.
There are too many variations in implementation to give a general rule.
In the end, it all comes down to CICO. There is no magical diet, just individual preferences (and sometimes medical conditions). Don't get fooled by anyone promoting an "eat all you want because calories don't matter on this diet" diet, whether they are promoting a vegan, carnivore, high protein, low protein, high fat, low fat, high carb, low carb, or any other type of diet.
Choose whatever plan is comfortable and sustainable for you - many of us design very individual plans that suit our preferences. There is no need to label or categorize your preferences. The speed at which you achieve your goal is all but irrelevant in the big picture - choosing methods that allow you to achieve and maintain your goal is what counts.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
I'm interested in reading more about that. Got a link?
I presume he is talking about this:
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eat-like-successful-myfitnesspal-user/
well, interesting, but I have to notice that the successful users are not those "who lost the most weight" but those "within 5% of their stated goal weight at the time the data were pulled".
I also would fall in that category, and haven't lost any weight.
Sure, I'm not taking a huge amount from that blog other than people who are mindful of how much they are eating (based on calories) as well as general diet quality (high fibre foods correlate with general recommendations of food items which help cover nutritional bases, help with satiety and so on) tend to do well.
Which is a bit obvious really.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
I'm interested in reading more about that. Got a link?
I presume he is talking about this:
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eat-like-successful-myfitnesspal-user/
well, interesting, but I have to notice that the successful users are not those "who lost the most weight" but those "within 5% of their stated goal weight at the time the data were pulled".
I also would fall in that category, and haven't lost any weight.
Sure, I'm not taking a huge amount from that blog other than people who are mindful of how much they are eating (based on calories) as well as general diet quality (high fibre foods correlate with general recommendations of food items which help cover nutritional bases, help with satiety and so on) tend to do well.
Which is a bit obvious really.
I agree with you, even if I don't find so obvious some of the results (about meat and eggs specifically).
I also would like to know where successful users are on the amount of saturated/unsaturated fat, added sugar, glycemix index/load, and ultraprocessed food (ok, I know, I'm asking too much
. 0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
I'm interested in reading more about that. Got a link?
I presume he is talking about this:
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eat-like-successful-myfitnesspal-user/
well, interesting, but I have to notice that the successful users are not those "who lost the most weight" but those "within 5% of their stated goal weight at the time the data were pulled".
I also would fall in that category, and haven't lost any weight.
Sure, I'm not taking a huge amount from that blog other than people who are mindful of how much they are eating (based on calories) as well as general diet quality (high fibre foods correlate with general recommendations of food items which help cover nutritional bases, help with satiety and so on) tend to do well.
Which is a bit obvious really.
I agree with you, even if I don't find so obvious some of the results (about meat and eggs specifically).
I also would like to know where successful users are on the amount of saturated/unsaturated fat, added sugar, glycemix index/load, and ultraprocessed food (ok, I know, I'm asking too much .
Re: the meat and eggs point I'm guessing the reduction is due to some, if not a large, degree to the touted health benefits of adopting a Mediterranean type diet (or to a lesser extent the DASH diet.) Couple this with general health advice to lower consumption of red meat and possible risks related to processed meats in a calorie restricted environment meat and eggs get crowded out for fish, grains, olive oil and so on. I don't find it surprising.
As to your other point well if you don't ask you don't get! I would be wary of taking too much away from such a data crunching exercise though with wide parameters as that seems like it could generate false positives all over the place...
0 -
Microscopes wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here is my experience, which may differ from the experience of others:
For more than 2 years, I've been trying to lose weight using CICO. It happens slowly and is very inconsistent (i.e. I'll lose some times when expected, but not lose sometimes when expected). Every time I hit a plateau (a real plateau, meaning that I'm eating less than I'm burning and still not losing), I get frustrated and try different things to get that loss. Every time so far, the plateau has eventually ended (with a big whoosh), but only once can I identify what I actually did to cause the plateau to end. I've had a lot of frustration with weight loss. I have health issues, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (I don't make any insulin - type 1; and I'm insulin resistant - type 2) so I have issues related to that. My endocrinologist has low expectations for me to lose weight and I have exceeded his expectations, but have lost so slowly and failed what I would expect and what MFP projects based on calories. For the past 1.5 years, I've used a food scale and a Fitbit (with HRM for just over a year). Despite measuring fairly accurately, I just can't lose at the rate MFP says I should be. My endocrinologist has an explanation as to why I can't lose very fast, but it annoys me anyway. In more than 2 years, I've lost just over 30 lbs.
Almost a month ago, I switched to low carb in an effort to better control blood glucose. During the past month (a couple days shy), I've been losing faster and faster to where I'm not losing 2 lbs. / week (MFP is set for 1 lb. / week). I have not changed calories at all, but I've changed macros. The intent was not to lose weight any faster, but to improve BG's. I have a theory as to why low carb is making a difference for me for weight loss, which is based on my knowledge and understanding of the different energy sources in my body and how and when different macros get converted to energy... but that is a topic for another thread.
holy crap.
that goes against what is being preached by many here. not sure what to believe
Do you have Cystic Fibrosis or something? CF creates that kind of diabetes. Like, the mucus clogs up the pancreas so it doesn't produce much insulin [not to mention having to take enzymes to absorb nutrients from foods], AND it creates a special form of diabetes called CFRD, which is sort of a mix between type 1 and type 2.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here is my experience, which may differ from the experience of others:
For more than 2 years, I've been trying to lose weight using CICO. It happens slowly and is very inconsistent (i.e. I'll lose some times when expected, but not lose sometimes when expected). Every time I hit a plateau (a real plateau, meaning that I'm eating less than I'm burning and still not losing), I get frustrated and try different things to get that loss. Every time so far, the plateau has eventually ended (with a big whoosh), but only once can I identify what I actually did to cause the plateau to end. I've had a lot of frustration with weight loss. I have health issues, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (I don't make any insulin - type 1; and I'm insulin resistant - type 2) so I have issues related to that. My endocrinologist has low expectations for me to lose weight and I have exceeded his expectations, but have lost so slowly and failed what I would expect and what MFP projects based on calories. For the past 1.5 years, I've used a food scale and a Fitbit (with HRM for just over a year). Despite measuring fairly accurately, I just can't lose at the rate MFP says I should be. My endocrinologist has an explanation as to why I can't lose very fast, but it annoys me anyway. In more than 2 years, I've lost just over 30 lbs.
Almost a month ago, I switched to low carb in an effort to better control blood glucose. During the past month (a couple days shy), I've been losing faster and faster to where I'm not losing 2 lbs. / week (MFP is set for 1 lb. / week). I have not changed calories at all, but I've changed macros. The intent was not to lose weight any faster, but to improve BG's. I have a theory as to why low carb is making a difference for me for weight loss, which is based on my knowledge and understanding of the different energy sources in my body and how and when different macros get converted to energy... but that is a topic for another thread.
holy crap.
that goes against what is being preached by many here. not sure what to believe
Do you have Cystic Fibrosis or something? CF creates that kind of diabetes. Like, the mucus clogs up the pancreas so it doesn't produce much insulin [not to mention having to take enzymes to absorb nutrients from foods], AND it creates a special form of diabetes called CFRD, which is sort of a mix between type 1 and type 2.
No, I don't have cystic fibrosis. Nor do I have a "mix" of type 1 and type 2. Type 1 and type 2 diabetes are completely different diseases. I just happen to have both.
Type 1 diabetes - Someone doesn't make insulin. In all but a few rare circumstances, this happens because of an auto-immune response that kills cells that make insulin. All type 1's take insulin.
Type 2 diabetes - Inefficiency with use or absorption of insulin. Some who are type 2 can control with diet and exercise, some take oral medication, and others take supplemental insulin. There is documentation of a rare version of type 2 where people really don't make enough insulin (they still make some), but often the description given of "they don't make enough" is a misunderstanding based on a person needing more than what would be needed if it were used efficiently and the pancreas' inability to keep up with such high demand.
Type 1 is an auto-immune disease and type 2 is a metabolic disorder.
In my case, I take insulin for type 1 and I take oral medication for type 2 plus a bit more insulin than most who are only type 1.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Here is my experience, which may differ from the experience of others:
For more than 2 years, I've been trying to lose weight using CICO. It happens slowly and is very inconsistent (i.e. I'll lose some times when expected, but not lose sometimes when expected). Every time I hit a plateau (a real plateau, meaning that I'm eating less than I'm burning and still not losing), I get frustrated and try different things to get that loss. Every time so far, the plateau has eventually ended (with a big whoosh), but only once can I identify what I actually did to cause the plateau to end. I've had a lot of frustration with weight loss. I have health issues, including both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (I don't make any insulin - type 1; and I'm insulin resistant - type 2) so I have issues related to that. My endocrinologist has low expectations for me to lose weight and I have exceeded his expectations, but have lost so slowly and failed what I would expect and what MFP projects based on calories. For the past 1.5 years, I've used a food scale and a Fitbit (with HRM for just over a year). Despite measuring fairly accurately, I just can't lose at the rate MFP says I should be. My endocrinologist has an explanation as to why I can't lose very fast, but it annoys me anyway. In more than 2 years, I've lost just over 30 lbs.
Almost a month ago, I switched to low carb in an effort to better control blood glucose. During the past month (a couple days shy), I've been losing faster and faster to where I'm not losing 2 lbs. / week (MFP is set for 1 lb. / week). I have not changed calories at all, but I've changed macros. The intent was not to lose weight any faster, but to improve BG's. I have a theory as to why low carb is making a difference for me for weight loss, which is based on my knowledge and understanding of the different energy sources in my body and how and when different macros get converted to energy... but that is a topic for another thread.
holy crap.
that goes against what is being preached by many here. not sure what to believe
Do you have Cystic Fibrosis or something? CF creates that kind of diabetes. Like, the mucus clogs up the pancreas so it doesn't produce much insulin [not to mention having to take enzymes to absorb nutrients from foods], AND it creates a special form of diabetes called CFRD, which is sort of a mix between type 1 and type 2.
No, I don't have cystic fibrosis. Nor do I have a "mix" of type 1 and type 2. Type 1 and type 2 diabetes are completely different diseases. I just happen to have both.
Type 1 diabetes - Someone doesn't make insulin. In all but a few rare circumstances, this happens because of an auto-immune response that kills cells that make insulin. All type 1's take insulin.
Type 2 diabetes - Inefficiency with use or absorption of insulin. Some who are type 2 can control with diet and exercise, some take oral medication, and others take supplemental insulin. There is documentation of a rare version of type 2 where people really don't make enough insulin (they still make some), but often the description given of "they don't make enough" is a misunderstanding based on a person needing more than what would be needed if it were used efficiently and the pancreas' inability to keep up with such high demand.
Type 1 is an auto-immune disease and type 2 is a metabolic disorder.
In my case, I take insulin for type 1 and I take oral medication for type 2 plus a bit more insulin than most who are only type 1.
Ah ok, I was just curious. In CF, the pancreas is both clogged and scarred so there goes the type 1. It can't make inuslin. The type 2 comes in play because people with CF also become insulin resistant. So they end up having both type 1 and 2, which is why I called it a mix. They have features of both. I don't hear about it very often which is why I asked.
Of course, if you have Cf you have bigger problems than diabetes, like needing a double lung transplant eventually.
Thanks for explaining!0 -
RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
If you are referring to https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eat-like-successful-myfitnesspal-user/ I'm not sure that you can extrapolate from the "successful" users eating 29% more fiber that they are high carb. @senecarr ?0 -
Glucose is very rarely turned into fatty acids. It can be combined with fatty acids to make triglycerides. The body does not tend to use glucose to make fat, it is wastefully inefficient. Rather, for most individuals, excess glucose is switched to the primary fuel, and the body instead stores dietary fat instead of using it for fuel. It is far more efficient to use glucose as glucose, store the fats, instead of take glucose, spend energy turning into fat, then use fat for fuel.midwesterner85 wrote: »@senecarr The part you bolded, as I understand, is making that point that body fat is created from excess glucose. If a person has no excess glucose, then they don't get extra body fat.
So here is my understanding of my own results when changing macros without changing calories:
The 3 main energy sources in our body are glucose, glycogen, and fat. Before glycogen or fat is added, it is glucose. Net carbs create a glucose spike. Within a short time, if this glucose is not used, it gets added to glycogen and then to fat. For a sedentary individual, or for someone who is not expending that energy within 1-2 hours of consuming net carbs, some or most of the spike of a high carb meal ends up as body fat. If it doesn't get used quickly and it doesn't replenish glycogen quickly, then it is converted to fat. If this did not happen, then everyone who eats high net carbs would have high blood glucose all the time. The differences in my case are that I take insulin manually to make this happen instead of creating my own (as most do), and that I have to take a lot of insulin to make it work. You will always be using some energy, and glucose is always needed to be available to feed muscles throughout the day even for sedentary individuals. But a big spike that isn't going to be used for several hours just isn't going to stick around... your body will store it instead.
How does one get glucose when on a low carb diet? We still need glucose to live, even when we are not eating carbs to spike blood glucose levels. When we eat protein, it is broken down into individual amino acids. Most amino acids can be used to repair muscles. Protein can also be broken down and converted to blood glucose (through gluconeogenesis). This process takes much more time and there is not glucose spike. It is a slower supply of glucose that doesn't normally cause such high levels that it is removed from blood and stored as body fat. A similar thing happens with dietary fat - it is broken down to become glucose, but it takes a very long time for this to happen and there is no glucose spike from dietary fat. Like dietary protein and dietary fat, body protein (muscle) and body fat can also be converted to blood glucose.
Here is the part that I'm less certain about from a scientific standpoint: Does gluconeogenesis happen if one does not actually need blood glucose to rise? We know that net carbs spike glucose no matter what, and excess glucose goes to fat. But if the body is operating efficiently, then it would not expend effort for gluconeogenesis for any more glucose than is actually necessary, right? I'm not sure, but my theory as to why the low carb diet has been so successful for me is based on a 2-word modification in the known explanation of how this works: protein and fat will be broken down to create glucose as needed. The result of these 2 words is that glucose is not created when not needed and that means there is no extra glucose to be converted into body fat.
0 -
Glucose is very rarely turned into fatty acids. It can be combined with fatty acids to make triglycerides. The body does not tend to use glucose to make fat, it is wastefully inefficient. Rather, for most individuals, excess glucose is switched to the primary fuel, and the body instead stores dietary fat instead of using it for fuel. It is far more efficient to use glucose as glucose, store the fats, instead of take glucose, spend energy turning into fat, then use fat for fuel.midwesterner85 wrote: »@senecarr The part you bolded, as I understand, is making that point that body fat is created from excess glucose. If a person has no excess glucose, then they don't get extra body fat.
So here is my understanding of my own results when changing macros without changing calories:
The 3 main energy sources in our body are glucose, glycogen, and fat. Before glycogen or fat is added, it is glucose. Net carbs create a glucose spike. Within a short time, if this glucose is not used, it gets added to glycogen and then to fat. For a sedentary individual, or for someone who is not expending that energy within 1-2 hours of consuming net carbs, some or most of the spike of a high carb meal ends up as body fat. If it doesn't get used quickly and it doesn't replenish glycogen quickly, then it is converted to fat. If this did not happen, then everyone who eats high net carbs would have high blood glucose all the time. The differences in my case are that I take insulin manually to make this happen instead of creating my own (as most do), and that I have to take a lot of insulin to make it work. You will always be using some energy, and glucose is always needed to be available to feed muscles throughout the day even for sedentary individuals. But a big spike that isn't going to be used for several hours just isn't going to stick around... your body will store it instead.
How does one get glucose when on a low carb diet? We still need glucose to live, even when we are not eating carbs to spike blood glucose levels. When we eat protein, it is broken down into individual amino acids. Most amino acids can be used to repair muscles. Protein can also be broken down and converted to blood glucose (through gluconeogenesis). This process takes much more time and there is not glucose spike. It is a slower supply of glucose that doesn't normally cause such high levels that it is removed from blood and stored as body fat. A similar thing happens with dietary fat - it is broken down to become glucose, but it takes a very long time for this to happen and there is no glucose spike from dietary fat. Like dietary protein and dietary fat, body protein (muscle) and body fat can also be converted to blood glucose.
Here is the part that I'm less certain about from a scientific standpoint: Does gluconeogenesis happen if one does not actually need blood glucose to rise? We know that net carbs spike glucose no matter what, and excess glucose goes to fat. But if the body is operating efficiently, then it would not expend effort for gluconeogenesis for any more glucose than is actually necessary, right? I'm not sure, but my theory as to why the low carb diet has been so successful for me is based on a 2-word modification in the known explanation of how this works: protein and fat will be broken down to create glucose as needed. The result of these 2 words is that glucose is not created when not needed and that means there is no extra glucose to be converted into body fat.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear: By "excess glucose," I mean the glucose that is in excess of what is needed for fuel in the short term. Excess glucose does not include what is needed for current energy expenditure.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »RobertWilkens wrote: »Microscopes wrote: »When I was on low carb in the past, within a couple weeks my pants would get real lose, etc.
I've been doing CICO for almost a month now along with 3 days per week of heavy weight lifting with a personal trainer. Weighing every single thing that goes into my mouth that isn't pre-portioned. Staying at the calorie goal MFP gave me, and not even eating back my exercise calories.
Yet, I haven't noticed any difference in my pants. Still very snug.
So - obviously CICO works and it is a lifestyle change, but is it a bit slower to see changes with CICO than with low carb, for example?
MFP tracked people who lost the most weight, and it turned out high carb (specifically, high fiber, which is a carb) led to the most weight loss success.
-Rob
If you are referring to https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/eat-like-successful-myfitnesspal-user/ I'm not sure that you can extrapolate from the "successful" users eating 29% more fiber that they are high carb. @senecarr ?
29% more fiber for a man would be 49 grams. That wouldn't guarantee anyone is high carb, though eating that amount of fiber without extra carbs would hard. There'd be more of a case with the nugget in the blog about successful users eating 17% more cereal. The infographic also shows 2% higher grain consumption, but I don't see that as incredibly significant.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