Low fat or low carb? How much have you lost?

SarahJLong1388

Trying to figure out which is the better approach, I would love to hear your guys opinions and how much weight you lost!

nvmomketo

It's going to vary a lot from person to person.

I did lower fat and higher carb for most of my life. When I was younger (under 35) and more active, It suited me well. Eventually my health started slipping (developed insulin resistance and some autoimmune issues) and I started gaining weight. I now find that LCHF keeps me healthest.

So in a nutshell, in my 20's I was low fat and maintained a slim figure along with a fair bit of exercise; I was about 10 lbs heavier than when I was 18. In my 30s my health declined, I could not exercise as much and I gained weight - eventually gained 35 lbs with most of it in my late 30s. I was low fat at the time. Now I eat a ketogenic diet and lost close to 40 lbs.

For those with insulin resistance (PCOS, NAFLD, T2D, Alzheimers and CAD) LCHF may help with weight loss. For others? There won't be any real difference.

usmcmp

I didn't really do either. I increased my protein and sort of just let the other two land where they do. I lost a total of 62 pounds, not counting my highest weight when pregnant.

tjones0411

I did very low carb and lost about 20 pounds. I'm 5'6" and went from 146 and now am at 127. The majority came off the first 3 months. I have since raised my carb intake a bit and focus primarily on calories, but still try to stay less than 75g per day...because it's what feels most comfortable to me.

Gallowmere1984

My diet has always been on the lower side for carbs. It's just how I've always eaten; at least since I moved away from the land of Cheerios, Ramen, and frozen burritos (home with parents who know *kitten* all about food).

When I was fat as hell, I ate relatively few carbs (125-150).
As I lost 114 lbs, I ate even fewer carbs (25-50).
Either approach can work, or can screw you, depending upon your deficit.

RoxieDawn

Personal preference. I have done both personally and lost no more weight, any better or faster doing either method. Based on my exercise, low carb did not cut it.

kommodevaran

Neither is better. The best diet for YOU is one you can not just stick to, but live happily with. (Notice I said "one", not "the"? A multitude of different combinations could work well for any given person.)

I have never gone true low carb nor true low fat, but I did find cutting more from the carbs a better strategy for me. The challenge is not the weight loss phase, though - we can do lots of unpleasant things for a short while - but the mainenance phase, which is for life. If you don't like the way you eat, you won't stick to it, and you need to stick to it. I lost almost 50 pounds, twice. Go figure.

LucyJones195

I have done low fat most of my adult life with some success but decreasingly so now I am approaching my 50s. I have just gone a huge brain change and gone LCHF and results are very promising. Coming to the end of week one and lost around 7lbs (water?) but very happy. Week 2 and 3 might be a better guide .... I will let you know. I have never lost more than 1 or 2 a week on low fat before ...

Sued0nim

Scientifically neither

Low carb will give you an early boost through water weight loss but within 12 weeks results are equal. Anecdotal evidence merely reflects on personal preference

The question is which c'n you stick to

JinjoJoey

At the end of the day, it's a calorie deficit that loses weight, regardless of the diet type. Unless you have some medical condition where you can't process carbs or fat properly. Go with whichever balance keeps you most satisfied. If you're super active, high carb may be the way to go, but doesn't mean you have to.

Wynterbourne

Low calorie. 95 lbs as of Friday.

amusedmonkey

Neither low fat nor low carb. Counting calories, moderate fat, moderate to high carb. 90 pounds gone so far.
There isn't one macro split that is better. The best macro split for you is the one that is easiest to maintain within your calorie budget.

abadvat

general weight loss is low calorie - low carb is irrelevant and low fat can be dangerous (depending on levels of fat intake obviously). The low carb / macro twerking comes into play when you hit a low BF% and need to go down further your shred lane!

Gallowmere1984

5-45% caloric deficit (higher when fatter, lower as weight dropped), 113.6 lbs. lost.
Yes, I have always been low-carb, and itt's irrelevant to the loss. It only contributed in that, I prefer to eat this way, so it made everything easier to adhere to. I was LC when I was 265 as well.
I'll be low-carb through most of my bulk phases as well (TKD). This doesn't mean that LC makes you fat.

caradack1985

I've tried both, they both made me lose weight, they were also both unsustainable and gave me bowel problems. Now I'm doing neither, but my diet is sustainable and I'm not running to the loo ten times a day.

TavistockToad

SarahJLong1388 wrote: »

Trying to figure out which is the better approach, I would love to hear your guys opinions and how much weight you lost!

neither, just a good old fashioned calorie deficit for me!

stevencloser

SarahJLong1388 wrote: »

Trying to figure out which is the better approach, I would love to hear your guys opinions and how much weight you lost!

Neither. Whatever you can adhere to until you met your goal. You don't even have to go low in either, you could just reduce your caloric intake with moderate amounts of all macros.

Shadowmf023

I lost 40lb with low fat. But for the past 2 years I've struggled to lose a single pound. Because I just keep "mini-binging" up to maintenance or slightly above. I just keep craving and wanting food.

I've been on low carb for a few weeks now and although my loss has mostly been water weight, I'm about to break into fat loss, I think, because I generally only hold about 5lb water weight. The cravings and wanting have gone away and I honesty haven't had this much control in years.

It's not for everyone though, and the best WOE is generally the one you can stick with consistently and for the longest time.

Michael190lbs

Sued0nim wrote: »

Scientifically neither

Low carb will give you an early boost through water weight loss but within 12 weeks results are equal. Anecdotal evidence merely reflects on personal preference

The question is which c'n you stick to

Exactly! I did low carb High fat lost 100 lbs because it worked for my particular self only. Now that I'm 180 lbs Goal weight I have raised my carbs to 150 grams and lowered my fat to just under 80-100 grams to give myself a more balanced diet, I will eventually get to 200 grams of carbs once I figure out some type of Carb I can eat on a regular basis and stay satisfied with my food choices. Protein intake will never be an issue for me

BiggDaddy58

Low Calorie..although looking at my diet ..it is higher Carbs and lower fat..I am 57 and diabetic (so my Dr says)

I have lost 71 pounds since March 1st and am on no meds..

coreyreichle

SarahJLong1388 wrote: »

Trying to figure out which is the better approach, I would love to hear your guys opinions and how much weight you lost!

Low calories, standard macro split. Lost 50 lbs in ~ 1 year, and I cheated quite a bit (Logged it all, though).

lemurcat12

Either or neither, depends on personal preference. I've mostly done moderate carb and fat (40-30-30, C-F-P) when losing, lost 95 lbs, but have at various points done slightly lower carb (not especially low, around 100 g) or low fat, and both were fine, for me. What matters most for me is eating a diet with lots of vegetables, enough protein, and generally nutrition-conscious but not overly restrictive. What is going to make a difference is choosing something that is sustainable and pleasant, for you.