Carbquik and Low Carb

Azdak

psuLemon wrote: »

bicycleespresso wrote: »

Here's an experiment to you calorie counters. I went from 1800 to 1500 calories, same carb count....no weight loss. Went from 200 carbs to 20 carbs- weight loss. And no, it's no effing water weight. You are not talking to somebody that doesn't know anything about weight loss. I've struggled with weight loss since I was 12 years old and I'm now 35. I fluctuated anywhere between 250 pounds to 168, at my healthiest when I was on weight watchers eating correctly and riding my bike almost 30 miles a day six days a week. When I have no life and I could do something like that. You can't just count calories and stuff your face with whatever carbs that you want. This is why Americans are suffering with obesity. I'm not really understanding why you think it's so bad to count carbs when loading up on Breads, pasta, donuts, high intake of sugar fruits, and all that kind of stuff might not be healthy for your body. I just asked a question about people that used carb quick because it is for people that are following a diet of counting carbs. If you are not following a diet of counting carbs then you don't need to comment. I am on a diet of counting carbs, don't count calories, so I can hit a calorie mark of 1600 cal a day which is fine because I am overweight. I am fully aware of how carbs work because as being a cyclist for over 15 years, I know how carbs feed your body. But I'm not doing that anymore so I'm seeking the advice of people that are on a low-carb diet or way of eating. Thank you and goodnight. 20lbs of water weight. That's a good one. I'll go hang out with the Keto folks- thanks

No one is arguing that you shouldn't count carbs, but it's ignorant to suggest that carbs > calories when it's fundamentally wrong. Energy balance is one of the most fundamental aspects of weight loss. And there is substantial amounts of evidence to support that. Even more so, the healthiest places on the planet are the blue zone's which are 70% carbs. Americans and many other countries are fat due to increased availability of food and increase sedentary lifestyles. And just because you have an inability to process carbs well, doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Thinking Americans are fat because we are now labeling cakes, doughnuts, cookies, etc.. as carbs instead of fats like we did 15 years a go is a bit short sighted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest


Having said that, there are a variety of conditions that have adverse reactions to carbohydrates: insulin resistance, diabetes, PCOS, etc... to name a few. In those states, it seems there is a reduction in metabolism when high level of carbs are present. In these cases especially, it is very important (for most people) to monitor carbs; this is depending on the severity of their condition. Additionally, if you find counting carbs over calories, that is fine. Many people here find that beneficial. That is why there is a huge LCHF group that is active.

Brad Schoenfeld is commenting on another study that hasn't been officially published yet, but which is showing that neither insulin resistance nor genetic factors mattered from a weight loss standpoint--over 12 months both high- and low-carb groups lost the same amount of fat when calories and protein were equal.

I suspect that, while the means show no significant differences, there is some variablility in response among subjects. Given all the factors involved, this would make some sense. That, and the difficulty in individuals being able to differentiate the effects of low-carb vs satiety vs auto suggestion vs placebo vs actual calorie intake vs fluid shifts (to name a few) IMO would account for much of the n=1 anecdotes that are so prevalent.

psuLemon

Azdak wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

bicycleespresso wrote: »

Here's an experiment to you calorie counters. I went from 1800 to 1500 calories, same carb count....no weight loss. Went from 200 carbs to 20 carbs- weight loss. And no, it's no effing water weight. You are not talking to somebody that doesn't know anything about weight loss. I've struggled with weight loss since I was 12 years old and I'm now 35. I fluctuated anywhere between 250 pounds to 168, at my healthiest when I was on weight watchers eating correctly and riding my bike almost 30 miles a day six days a week. When I have no life and I could do something like that. You can't just count calories and stuff your face with whatever carbs that you want. This is why Americans are suffering with obesity. I'm not really understanding why you think it's so bad to count carbs when loading up on Breads, pasta, donuts, high intake of sugar fruits, and all that kind of stuff might not be healthy for your body. I just asked a question about people that used carb quick because it is for people that are following a diet of counting carbs. If you are not following a diet of counting carbs then you don't need to comment. I am on a diet of counting carbs, don't count calories, so I can hit a calorie mark of 1600 cal a day which is fine because I am overweight. I am fully aware of how carbs work because as being a cyclist for over 15 years, I know how carbs feed your body. But I'm not doing that anymore so I'm seeking the advice of people that are on a low-carb diet or way of eating. Thank you and goodnight. 20lbs of water weight. That's a good one. I'll go hang out with the Keto folks- thanks

No one is arguing that you shouldn't count carbs, but it's ignorant to suggest that carbs > calories when it's fundamentally wrong. Energy balance is one of the most fundamental aspects of weight loss. And there is substantial amounts of evidence to support that. Even more so, the healthiest places on the planet are the blue zone's which are 70% carbs. Americans and many other countries are fat due to increased availability of food and increase sedentary lifestyles. And just because you have an inability to process carbs well, doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Thinking Americans are fat because we are now labeling cakes, doughnuts, cookies, etc.. as carbs instead of fats like we did 15 years a go is a bit short sighted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266991/

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10436946/are-all-calories-equal-part-2-kevins-halls-new-study#latest


Having said that, there are a variety of conditions that have adverse reactions to carbohydrates: insulin resistance, diabetes, PCOS, etc... to name a few. In those states, it seems there is a reduction in metabolism when high level of carbs are present. In these cases especially, it is very important (for most people) to monitor carbs; this is depending on the severity of their condition. Additionally, if you find counting carbs over calories, that is fine. Many people here find that beneficial. That is why there is a huge LCHF group that is active.

Brad Schoenfeld is commenting on another study that hasn't been officially published yet, but which is showing that neither insulin resistance nor genetic factors mattered from a weight loss standpoint--over 12 months both high- and low-carb groups lost the same amount of fat when calories and protein were equal.

I suspect that, while the means show no significant differences, there is some variablility in response among subjects. Given all the factors involved, this would make some sense. That, and the difficulty in individuals being able to differentiate the effects of low-carb vs satiety vs auto suggestion vs placebo vs actual calorie intake vs fluid shifts (to name a few) IMO would account for much of the n=1 anecdotes that are so prevalent.

Oh, that will be interesting..i love the work of Schoenfeld.