why do ppl do low carb for weight loss?

pluckabee

Because a lot of people don't understand there is a difference between processed carbs (= sugar) and natural carbs (fiber, and a combo of complex and simple sugars).

One should not be concerned at all with carbs from fruits and veggies. In whole grains, I need to look out for calories, but still fine. Our body needs those type of carbs. But today, most people's caloric intake comes from highly processed carbs like bread, pastas, cereals, snacks... That is why cutting down on carbs helps. But it is too simplistic to just say "low carb is good". We should not cut down on good carbs.

What does the body need whole grains for?

ercamacho

Because a lot of people don't understand there is a difference between processed carbs (= sugar) and natural carbs (fiber, and a combo of complex and simple sugars).

One should not be concerned at all with carbs from fruits and veggies. In whole grains, I need to look out for calories, but still fine. Our body needs those type of carbs. But today, most people's caloric intake comes from highly processed carbs like bread, pastas, cereals, snacks... That is why cutting down on carbs helps. But it is too simplistic to just say "low carb is good". We should not cut down on good carbs.

JUST FYI, I'm extremely insulin resistant with PCOS/Hashimotos AND taking a Dr. prescribed medicine for insulin resistance. I ate watermelon the other day and spiked a blood sugar of 140. I had 1/2 cup of tomato soup, blood sugar 142. So, OBVIOUSLY my body doesn't process carbs the same way your body does. I can eat fruits, but have to make choices on which fruits and how MUCH of the fruit I want to eat based on the amount of carbs. I also will eat Ezekiel bread and an occasional 1/2 sweet potato. I just can't eat rice, pasta, cereals, breads, or high carb fruits in excess of my allotted carb allowance per my doctor. This isn't just something I willy-nilly started, but something that blood work verified, dietitian and doctor monitor...

I also have MORE THAN AMPLE energy for the exercise I do. I do at minimum of 35-50 minutes of cardio 5-6 days a week as well as 50-60 minutes of major strength training (kettlebells, dumbbells, barbells, weight machines, etc) 4 days a week. I can assure you that I have the energy to complete all those tasks with my 'lower' carb lifestyle.

Good carbs for some may be not so good for someone else. I personally feel like everyone should try to figure out what works for THEIR body and physical needs. For me, what I'm doing is working. 51 pounds down as of this morning...

AlabasterVerve

Because a lot of people don't understand there is a difference between processed carbs (= sugar) and natural carbs (fiber, and a combo of complex and simple sugars).

One should not be concerned at all with carbs from fruits and veggies. In whole grains, I need to look out for calories, but still fine. Our body needs those type of carbs. But today, most people's caloric intake comes from highly processed carbs like bread, pastas, cereals, snacks... That is why cutting down on carbs helps. But it is too simplistic to just say "low carb is good". We should not cut down on good carbs.

That's just not true for everyone. Fruit, beans or cake it doesn't matter -- too many carbs is too many carbs no matter what the source for those of us who don't tolerate them well.

xtina1982

I have Type 2 Diabetes and no matter how much the American Diabetes Association tells me it's good for me to eat 100s of grams of carbs every day as long as they are "good" carbs, it's not true. My body does not process carbs well at all. In fact, if I eat too many salads during the week, my fasting blood sugars begin to rise. I have to monitor even healthy carbs from vegetables in order to keep my blood sugar within normal ranges. I keep my carbs under 50 most days and my recent labwork tells me that my body is happy and healthy that way.

Everyone is different and not everyone needs a low carb diet. But for those of us that do, we really wish people would understand that everyone needs to eat what is right for their body and not just label it as a "fad" or "unhealthy." Thanks for asking a non-judgmental question instead of just criticizing something you didn't understand.

Thank you for this. Took the words right out of my mouth.

bcattoes

Low carb diets work because they force one to give up or severely limit things that many people love to snack and binge on. Sugars, chips, bread, crackers, pasta, etc. This is also why low carb diets have a statistically poor long term record. So before starting, you should ask yourself if you are prepared to limit or give these things up permanently. If not, you stand a good chance of become one of the statistics that gain all the weight back.

Every diet has a statistically poor long term record.

Every. Single. One.

Before starting any attempt at losing weight you have to ask yourself if you are prepared to eat that way indefinitely.

Low carb diets are not special in this regard

Correct. I. Never. Suggested. Otherwise.

Although statistically, low carb has a worse record for long term sustainability than eating a balanced diet including all the macronutrients. All diets that eliminate large groups of common foods rate statistically lower than those that don't.

SJVZEE

Low carb diets work because they force one to give up or severely limit things that many people love to snack and binge on. Sugars, chips, bread, crackers, pasta, etc. This is also why low carb diets have a statistically poor long term record. So before starting, you should ask yourself if you are prepared to limit or give these things up permanently. If not, you stand a good chance of become one of the statistics that gain all the weight back.

Every diet has a statistically poor long term record.

Every. Single. One.

Before starting any attempt at losing weight you have to ask yourself if you are prepared to eat that way indefinitely.

Low carb diets are not special in this regard

Correct. I. Never. Suggested. Otherwise.

Although statistically, low carb has a worse record for long term sustainability than eating a balanced diet including all the macronutrients. All diets that eliminate large groups of common foods rate statistically lower than those that don't.

I'll have to do some digging around and see if I can find the info, but there's a study that's discussed in depth in the book Rethinking Thin, where two groups were put on Atkins vs the low calorie diet that's done at university weight loss clinics. The book was published before the study was completed. However, I read the follow up for the study in an article and the low carb group actually did have a very slight better success rate-still an overall failure, like those in the low calorie group, but some of the low carbers were able to stick with it long term vs. almost no one sticking to the low calorie diet. Off to do some googling to see if I can find the article!

bcattoes

Low carb diets work because they force one to give up or severely limit things that many people love to snack and binge on. Sugars, chips, bread, crackers, pasta, etc. This is also why low carb diets have a statistically poor long term record. So before starting, you should ask yourself if you are prepared to limit or give these things up permanently. If not, you stand a good chance of become one of the statistics that gain all the weight back.

Every diet has a statistically poor long term record.

Every. Single. One.

Before starting any attempt at losing weight you have to ask yourself if you are prepared to eat that way indefinitely.

Low carb diets are not special in this regard

Correct. I. Never. Suggested. Otherwise.

Although statistically, low carb has a worse record for long term sustainability than eating a balanced diet including all the macronutrients. All diets that eliminate large groups of common foods rate statistically lower than those that don't.

I'll have to do some digging around and see if I can find the info, but there's a study that's discussed in depth in the book Rethinking Thin, where two groups were put on Atkins vs the low calorie diet that's done at university weight loss clinics. The book was published before the study was completed. However, I read the follow up for the study in an article and the low carb group actually did have a very slight better success rate-still an overall failure, like those in the low calorie group, but some of the low carbers were able to stick with it long term vs. almost no one sticking to the low calorie diet. Off to do some googling to see if I can find the article!

I would be interested to see it, because I like to read studies about nutrition. But seriously, one study? That doesn't change statistics.

AlabasterVerve

Low carb diets work because they force one to give up or severely limit things that many people love to snack and binge on. Sugars, chips, bread, crackers, pasta, etc. This is also why low carb diets have a statistically poor long term record. So before starting, you should ask yourself if you are prepared to limit or give these things up permanently. If not, you stand a good chance of become one of the statistics that gain all the weight back.

Every diet has a statistically poor long term record.

Every. Single. One.

Before starting any attempt at losing weight you have to ask yourself if you are prepared to eat that way indefinitely.

Low carb diets are not special in this regard

Correct. I. Never. Suggested. Otherwise.

Although statistically, low carb has a worse record for long term sustainability than eating a balanced diet including all the macronutrients. All diets that eliminate large groups of common foods rate statistically lower than those that don't.

If that's true, I wonder if it's because everyone keeps telling us how unhealthy it is? I know personally I never would have considered eating this way until I was convinced the lipid hypothesis was flat out wrong and the recommendations for fat intake were not evidenced based. But what if you weren't convinced of that? I imagine it would make sticking to a low carb diet pretty difficult if the people around you are concerned for your health and you wondered yourself if your diet was doing more harm then good.

tootchute

I eat carbs, I just stay under.

SJVZEE

Low carb diets work because they force one to give up or severely limit things that many people love to snack and binge on. Sugars, chips, bread, crackers, pasta, etc. This is also why low carb diets have a statistically poor long term record. So before starting, you should ask yourself if you are prepared to limit or give these things up permanently. If not, you stand a good chance of become one of the statistics that gain all the weight back.

Every diet has a statistically poor long term record.

Every. Single. One.

Before starting any attempt at losing weight you have to ask yourself if you are prepared to eat that way indefinitely.

Low carb diets are not special in this regard

Correct. I. Never. Suggested. Otherwise.

Although statistically, low carb has a worse record for long term sustainability than eating a balanced diet including all the macronutrients. All diets that eliminate large groups of common foods rate statistically lower than those that don't.

I'll have to do some digging around and see if I can find the info, but there's a study that's discussed in depth in the book Rethinking Thin, where two groups were put on Atkins vs the low calorie diet that's done at university weight loss clinics. The book was published before the study was completed. However, I read the follow up for the study in an article and the low carb group actually did have a very slight better success rate-still an overall failure, like those in the low calorie group, but some of the low carbers were able to stick with it long term vs. almost no one sticking to the low calorie diet. Off to do some googling to see if I can find the article!

I would be interested to see it, because I like to read studies about nutrition. But seriously, one study? That doesn't change statistics.

I'm still looking, but it was quite a big study done by Penn. Rethinking Thin walks you through most of the study and interviews participants, but then the book was published before the study ended, which frustrated me. I found the follow up somehow- I'm determined to find it again I'm sure the book has the study name in it but I borrowed it from the library so I don't have it anymore. Bu the overall theme of the book and of the studies discussed, is that there's no one plan that has a better success rate than the other. They pretty much all fail

dayhadley

i have been on Atkins (around 1997-98) and was very successful but it was hard to stick with. Over the years, I've tried Weight Watchers (on and off) and liked the healthier eating lifestyle but the PROBLEM THERE is that you are calculating points, and unlike MFP, you don't see all the other important stuff - carbs, sodium, etc.
I recently had an annual check up and pretty much got the works... the doc said I was virtually perfect on paper (could stand to lose a few more pounds - she didn't say that cuz she's nice, I did :-)... but my triglycerides were a little elevated (bad cholesterol). She said that if I just cut down on carbs, I would 1.) probably shed the last 15-20 pounds I want to lose and 2.) bring down the bad cholesterol number.
The doctor is a HUGE fan of MFP because of the fact we can see all the nutritional facts and agreed with me about W.W. - great diet but sometimes something low in points could be a carb-nightmare.
So, my plan is to cut down on pasta, rice and bread - to start. I'm hoping this will break my weight loss plateau (need to exercise more, too) and get my "bad numbers" down.

ayalowich

This is an oversimplification and for the most part completely false. Not all carbs are bad for you, and some are absolutely essential (fruits to begin with). It is about cutting back on those that cause a spike in your insulin (white flour and certain sugars) and keeping those that have a lower glycemic index.

I did a modified Atkins approach 10 years ago and it worked really well in getting rid of the last 5-10 lbs. I felt really good and liked the way I looked. But after awhile, it is hard (as a runner) to cut out all pasta's and other things that you love so what I have found is that with a lower carb approach you either have to make it a life style choice or you could put back a lot of the weight you lose.

And I never went lower than 70-80 carbs per day and tried to keep it around 100. You can eat a piece of fruit and have some multi-grain bread now and then and still stay around those levels. When I decided I needed to lose some weight recently I did this in the first two weeks of June and dropped 7 lbs very quickly. It does work. But I have gone back and probably have 150-200 carbs per day, but because of my workout load and focus on calorie intake thanks to MFP I haven't reversed, but have actually dropped another 5 which has me very close to my goal.

I also have a weakness for pretzels and chocolate. It is really hard to not binge but I can still have a little of both as long as I'm careful and keep working out. I don't like the word diet, and have never consciously put myself on one. It is never just one thing. You have to eat healthy, in moderation, but also get your workouts in.

SJVZEE

Low carb diets work because they force one to give up or severely limit things that many people love to snack and binge on. Sugars, chips, bread, crackers, pasta, etc. This is also why low carb diets have a statistically poor long term record. So before starting, you should ask yourself if you are prepared to limit or give these things up permanently. If not, you stand a good chance of become one of the statistics that gain all the weight back.

Every diet has a statistically poor long term record.

Every. Single. One.

Before starting any attempt at losing weight you have to ask yourself if you are prepared to eat that way indefinitely.

Low carb diets are not special in this regard

Correct. I. Never. Suggested. Otherwise.

Although statistically, low carb has a worse record for long term sustainability than eating a balanced diet including all the macronutrients. All diets that eliminate large groups of common foods rate statistically lower than those that don't.

I'll have to do some digging around and see if I can find the info, but there's a study that's discussed in depth in the book Rethinking Thin, where two groups were put on Atkins vs the low calorie diet that's done at university weight loss clinics. The book was published before the study was completed. However, I read the follow up for the study in an article and the low carb group actually did have a very slight better success rate-still an overall failure, like those in the low calorie group, but some of the low carbers were able to stick with it long term vs. almost no one sticking to the low calorie diet. Off to do some googling to see if I can find the article!

I would be interested to see it, because I like to read studies about nutrition. But seriously, one study? That doesn't change statistics.

Ok, sort of success on my search lol

An excerpt from The New York Times, in a book review of Rethinking Thin, by Gina Kolata-
-Kolata follows a two-year clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania designed to test the low-carbohydrate, high-fat Atkins diet against a traditional low-calorie, low-fat one. Kolata wrote her book before she had the results for the trial, though a different study, published in March in The Journal of the American Medical Association, found that Atkins beats the low-cal diet for keeping off weight. The diet-versus-diet contest, however, isn’t her real story.

Instead, she focuses on how little weight those who follow any diet usually manage to keep off. (The average participant on the Atkins diet reported in JAMA lost only 10 pounds over the course of a year.) Kolata tells the stories of four dieters in the Penn trial who are smart and likable. They had the benefit of a professionally led support group and the status of taking part in a well-financed study. They started exercising; they stopped eating mindlessly. After two years, they’re a bit lighter. But none achieved the 50- to 100-pound weight loss they strove for (though one lost more than 30 pounds, 15 percent of his body weight).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/books/review/Bazelon.t.html?_r=0

However, I still can find a direct link to the actual studies, though I know I've read an in depth article about the one Kolata includes in her book somewhere-if I find it I'll post it

ajaxe432

You lose a lot of weight to begin with, though it's not fat.

My brother lost 98lbs in 7 months; I can assure you it wasn't all water :laugh:

No, it was a calorie deficit.

erm....no :laugh: His breakfast alone was bacon, eggs, frankfurters & mushrooms *every* day - always fried.
His coffees (several a day) were made with thick cream.
He ate lots of butter, cheese and full-fat mayo.

He lost the weight purely and simply because he cut the carbs to <20 a day and upped his protein & fats.

You can't knock something you haven't tried, just because it sounds too good to be true. It DOES work, as anyone who has done it (properly) knows

I somewhat agree with what you state here. Different diets work for different people, but was he counting his calories also? I think if he was, maybe he would have seen he was in a deficit, but maybe not! He lost that much weight....good for him:)

kcvance

Personally, my body doesn't process them well and they cause my thyroid to be sluggish. When I'm not managing my carbs my triglycerides double,and I put on weight like crazy. However, when I try to keep them at a low amount, I drop weight very rapidly. I'm sure everyone has different reasons,and I don't know the "scientific" answer. I just know why it works for me.

BOTH of these for me! (FINALLY someone else who has this problem besides me!) High triglycerides, sugar crash, and a wonky thyroid are the three main reasons for me.

jennb44

I feel so much better on a low-carb eating plan than any low-fat diet I have ever been on before. I feel full and satisfied, not like I was on low-fat. I eat none of that processed crap in a box that is loaded with sugar and salt. I have friends that this has worked for and they have maintained it as a lifestyle - not just a diet and I plan on doing the same. It has proven to me that my body doesn't react well to breads, sweets, white flour and pasta and I really don't miss eating them that at all.

bcattoes

Low carb diets work because they force one to give up or severely limit things that many people love to snack and binge on. Sugars, chips, bread, crackers, pasta, etc. This is also why low carb diets have a statistically poor long term record. So before starting, you should ask yourself if you are prepared to limit or give these things up permanently. If not, you stand a good chance of become one of the statistics that gain all the weight back.

Every diet has a statistically poor long term record.

Every. Single. One.

Before starting any attempt at losing weight you have to ask yourself if you are prepared to eat that way indefinitely.

Low carb diets are not special in this regard

Correct. I. Never. Suggested. Otherwise.

Although statistically, low carb has a worse record for long term sustainability than eating a balanced diet including all the macronutrients. All diets that eliminate large groups of common foods rate statistically lower than those that don't.

I'll have to do some digging around and see if I can find the info, but there's a study that's discussed in depth in the book Rethinking Thin, where two groups were put on Atkins vs the low calorie diet that's done at university weight loss clinics. The book was published before the study was completed. However, I read the follow up for the study in an article and the low carb group actually did have a very slight better success rate-still an overall failure, like those in the low calorie group, but some of the low carbers were able to stick with it long term vs. almost no one sticking to the low calorie diet. Off to do some googling to see if I can find the article!

I would be interested to see it, because I like to read studies about nutrition. But seriously, one study? That doesn't change statistics.

Ok, sort of success on my search lol

An excerpt from The New York Times, in a book review of Rethinking Thin, by Gina Kolata-
-Kolata follows a two-year clinical trial at the University of Pennsylvania designed to test the low-carbohydrate, high-fat Atkins diet against a traditional low-calorie, low-fat one. Kolata wrote her book before she had the results for the trial, though a different study, published in March in The Journal of the American Medical Association, found that Atkins beats the low-cal diet for keeping off weight. The diet-versus-diet contest, however, isn’t her real story.

Instead, she focuses on how little weight those who follow any diet usually manage to keep off. (The average participant on the Atkins diet reported in JAMA lost only 10 pounds over the course of a year.) Kolata tells the stories of four dieters in the Penn trial who are smart and likable. They had the benefit of a professionally led support group and the status of taking part in a well-financed study. They started exercising; they stopped eating mindlessly. After two years, they’re a bit lighter. But none achieved the 50- to 100-pound weight loss they strove for (though one lost more than 30 pounds, 15 percent of his body weight).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/books/review/Bazelon.t.html?_r=0

However, I still can find a direct link to the actual studies, though I know I've read an in depth article about the one Kolata includes in her book somewhere-if I find it I'll post it

I'm not sure I get your point. This one sentence - "found that Atkins beats the low-cal diet for keeping off weight" - in a newspaper article is your argument? And it sounds as if it was only compared to another low-macro diet, not a balanced sensible diet.

But again, I'm sure there is a study or two out there where low carb came out of top. But statistically, it performs lower than non-restrictive diets.

LAW_714

You lose a lot of weight to begin with, though it's not fat.

My brother lost 98lbs in 7 months; I can assure you it wasn't all water :laugh:

No, it was a calorie deficit.

Calories are (always) a factor.

That said, limiting carbs does help SOME people maintain their required calorie load and avoid some trigger foods without having to be hyper-vigilant about counting calories. There is a certain satiation factor that many people experience. If someone is insulin resistant or carb sensitive, avoiding high GI foods appears to be of some benefit in that regard.

Personally, I don't excessively limit carbs. I don't do the Atkin's induction phase of less than 30 g carbs. (I did it once many, many years ago. It worked -- weight, blood work, everything. But, it wasn't the perfect solution for me, because of my dietary preferances. Nothing is 'perfect.' But we need to find what's we can personally work with and can maintain long term. That's not always the same for all people.)

I am, however, learning to avoid added sugar to a large degree (largely getting my sugar from eating fresh fruit and vegetables) and I avoid refined wheat/flour products. Doing this while eating about as many vegetables as I could possibly want (even including potatoes periodically) along with regular daily servings of fruit. Doing this, I have no problem maintaining around 100g of carbs a day, and in doing so staying within my calorie goals without undue hunger or pesky cravings or feeling deprived. It actually seems 'easier' to me than when I eat many refined carbs. As soon as I add bread and sugar back, it's really easy to see how my calorie count very, very quickly climbs due to the addition of bread or pasta or sugar. And, truth be told, my degree of hunger is actually worse on those days.

Anecdotal and personal perception? You bet. But it's my body and it's going to come down to what I can comfortably maintain so it's going to be personal and anecdotal. Experience will differ from person to person.

Some people are more sensitive to carbs than others. Some work out more than others. Some have issues of insulin resistance. Others do not. Some simply have food preferences. All of these are factors.

For myself, reducing the amount of refined sugar and refined flour in my diet makes it easier for me to maintain my calorie goals.

So, yeah, it still functions on how many calories I eat, but some ways of eating help ME to adhere to my calorie goals more easily than other ways of eating.

Each person needs to find what works best for them. It's not always exactly the same.

Tubbytucka

If you're interested in low sugar/starch eating, have a look at the film 'Fat Head', it's on youtube. It's about 1hr 40min, but there is some interesting stuff in the about the politics of the so-called food pyramid and what happens in your body when you eat complex carbs.

lilRicki

I can only speak from personal experience, obviously everyone is different. I am following a low carb lifestyle, because it is the only way I am able to control my caloric intake. When I consume carbs such as bread, sugar, starchy vegetables, and junk food, I always overeat. When I remove those items from my diet, I am able to stick to a 1200 to 1500 calorie diet filled with healthy foods, not junk. It works for me. It's still all about the calories.

this...and because my hormones hate me, and due to being pre-menopause, my body wants to hold on to the fat for safe keeping. I also find my binge foods is simple carbs. When I start eating them, I don't stop.