why do ppl do low carb for weight loss?

Hexahedra

This is just in from National Geographic:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

It confirms that the boogeyman is Fructose, also known as fruit sugar. Fructose is in almost every fruit and plant we eat, although obviously the percentage is highest in fruits. When you eat low carb, you automatically eat low Fructose as well as long as you properly count the carb in fruits.

Getting back to low carb:
When you eat at a deficit you WILL lose weight regardless of what you eat. If you eat low carb without maintaining a deficit you will not lose weight, simple as that.

I personally think half of losing weight is a mind game, which is not very different from sports. Because each person has a different personality, the kind of weight loss macros that works for everybody is not identical. You want to stack the deck for you and make it easier mentally to maintain the new lifestyle. Certain carb-rich or sugar-rich foods are binge triggers for many people, so for them low carb diet makes perfect sense. I don't have any trigger food, so I have no need to do low carb to lose weight.

Certain people with certain medical conditions and sensitivities do need to follow a low carb diet. But, for the rest of us trying to lose weight it's calories in vs. calories out.

Now, when you have reached your goal weight and is going on maintenance, or even gaining, then low carb becomes relevant. However, the importance of carb depends on your personal goal. If your goal is mostly to have a lean but muscular look ala a bodybuilder, then low carb is the way to go. If your goal is sports performance or maximum fitness, then you can't do really low carb, not strictly throughout the day anyway.

I'm not saying you can't physically perform without carb, your body can function just fine without it. But, carbs and their sugar derivatives are the most efficient sources of energy your body can have. This means not having carb is not going to make you weak, it's just not gonna make you realize your full potential endurance and strength.

MsEndomorph

back to low carb:
When you eat at a deficit you WILL lose weight regardless of what you eat. If you eat low carb without maintaining a deficit you will not lose weight, simple as that.

Have you done a low carb diet AND tracked your calorie count at the same time? I ask because most people haven't dont both at once...it defeats one of the benefits of going low carb. As is lowering your caloric intake; once again it sort of defeats the appeal of South Beach and the like.

Anyway, I have done both. And in my experience, I can lose weight rapidly on a low carb diet without bothering to eat at a deficit. What I lack in carbs I can quickly and happily make up in fat.

Obviously there are other factors...maybe I feel less sluggish and am more active when I eat fewer carbs. Maybe I'm unknowingly cutting back on my salt, too. I have no clue.

Hexahedra

back to low carb:
When you eat at a deficit you WILL lose weight regardless of what you eat. If you eat low carb without maintaining a deficit you will not lose weight, simple as that.

Have you done a low carb diet AND tracked your calorie count at the same time? I ask because most people haven't dont both at once...it defeats one of the benefits of going low carb. As is lowering your caloric intake; once again it sort of defeats the appeal of South Beach and the like.

Anyway, I have done both. And in my experience, I can lose weight rapidly on a low carb diet without bothering to eat at a deficit. What I lack in carbs I can quickly and happily make up in fat.

A low carb diet does make it easier to lose weight because carb-rich foods are the least filling of them all. Carbs and sugars are efficient energy sources because it only takes a relatively little amount of them to get the same amount of calories, compared to protein and fat.

You can most certainly gain weight doing low carb, it's what bodybuilders do during their bulk phase.

I see your point though. If you do low carb without consciously trying to overfeed yourself, you will generally lose weight, so there's little need to count calories. But, conversely if you're counting calories then there's no need to do low carb (except for medical or psychological reasons).

Fitnin6280

For some people "low carb" is bumper sticker weight loss. They don't need to learn anything except, carbs are bad..... really, really bad. These "people" don't want to (or don't think they need to) learn anything about food ..... just carbs are bad..... really, really bad. Just cut out 1 thing .... and all their problems go away.

This was the low fat diet thing back in the day .....when all fats were created equal and ....fats were bad..... really, really bad.

Just FYI, those of us doing low carb aren't stupid, and most of us have done extensive research to find what works best with our bodies. My doctor reccomended it, and I am pretty sure she isn't stupid either. :noway:

wamydia

Anyway, I have done both. And in my experience, I can lose weight rapidly on a low carb diet without bothering to eat at a deficit. What I lack in carbs I can quickly and happily make up in fat.

Question: If you aren't tracking calories, how do you know whether you are eating a deficit or not?

ironanimal

Anyway, I have done both. And in my experience, I can lose weight rapidly on a low carb diet without bothering to eat at a deficit. What I lack in carbs I can quickly and happily make up in fat.

Question: If you aren't tracking calories, how do you know whether you are eating a deficit or not?

Ding ding ding

mushroomsontoast

I already answered this for you a few pages back, ironanimal ~ my brother lost 7st while eating 3,000 calories plus on a typical day. None of us had ever calculated his calorific intake before, I did it today just out of curiosity & because you'd asked.
Clearly you won't believe anything you are told, you've simply decided it's not possible and so don't believe all the things low carb/keto dieters are saying.
If low calorie/low fat is soooo ingrained upon you that you truly cannot see any other way, then I can understand that you find it hard to believe that calories play no part in a low carb diet; but 3,000 calories a day and *still* losing 7st?
He did try low cal/low fat, but was always hungry and miserable - and who can carry on like that long-term if they've over 100lbs to lose?

I must admit that I never lost as fast as my brother, maybe only half as much, but he was a lot heavier than me.

Maybe understanding the basics of low carb might help - that the body is forced to use FAT as fuel, not carbohydrates....both dietary *and* body fat.

TemikaThompson

I tried eating low carbs with the Atkins diet. It really worked for me as far as loosing fast. The only thing is that I really wanted the other foods that I used to eat like bread, pasta, and sweets. As soon as I started to eat them in proportion I gained all my weight back and then some. I guess whatever balanced diet that a person chooses for themselves, it has to work for "them" and be a lifestyle. It just didn't work for me. After reading this, I am however going to try to limit my intake of carbs because that's when "I" gain weight the most. I do agree with the person that said when you eat them you crave more, but I know for me, I like eating carbs and sweets so I don't think I can give it up completely but I am working towards limiting them in a balance way

mushroomsontoast

Me too Temika, I absolutely mourned potatoes; 'new' potatoes, dripping with butter. Never missed cakes, sweets, chocolate, pasta, rice, none of that...only potatoes. There are low-carb alternatives for a burger bun, cream cake etc, but nothing for the humble potato. And no, cauli mash offers *no* alternative to the little new potatoes I love so much :laugh:

But saying that, we are all here because we ate too much of things we shouldn't. And to undo the damage and get fit there has to be a change and some sacrifice; none of us will ever slim if we carry on eating like we did when we got fat.

Saying that, we'll all get fat again - whatever regime we follow - if we go back to eating like we did.
Low fat, low carb - it has to be a change for life. Yes we can gradually increase our limits when we want to maintain - on low carb it's usually by 10g extra carbs a week until you find your limit - low calorie it may be 100 calories a week, I don't know. But nevertheless it IS for life.

We got fat, so we're sadly *not* one of the lucky people who can eat anything.

Good luck, I really hope your new balance works for you

wamydia

I already answered this for you a few pages back, ironanimal ~ my brother lost 7st while eating 3,000 calories plus on a typical day. None of us had ever calculated his calorific intake before, I did it today just out of curiosity & because you'd asked.
Clearly you won't believe anything you are told, you've simply decided it's not possible and so don't believe all the things low carb/keto dieters are saying.
If low calorie/low fat is soooo ingrained upon you that you truly cannot see any other way, then I can understand that you find it hard to believe that calories play no part in a low carb diet; but 3,000 calories a day and *still* losing 7st?
He did try low cal/low fat, but was always hungry and miserable - and who can carry on like that long-term if they've over 100lbs to lose?

I must admit that I never lost as fast as my brother, maybe only half as much, but he was a lot heavier than me.

Maybe understanding the basics of low carb might help - that the body is forced to use FAT as fuel, not carbohydrates....both dietary *and* body fat.

I'm not ironanimal, so I'm not sure you were talking to me, but I was the one who asked about the calorie deficit this time so I guess I will answer.

The reason I am having a hard time understanding this isn't that I don't understand biochemistry (I'm a Biologist), it's that this argument makes no biological or energetic sense. I buy that eating low carb can help some people lose weight more easily and I will set aside all arguments as to the healthfulness of it. However, there is no reason to believe that a person can literally eat any amount of calories they wish and still lose weight as long as they cut carbs. It simply doesn't matter what the source of the calories is - if you eat more than you use, the excess has to go somewhere. Low carb diets are not magic.

Biologically speaking, a low carb diet that puts a person into ketosis does work differently in that it uses a different pathway (gluconeogenesis) to produce glucose. However, a low carb diet still behaves just like any other diet. Your body won't go to the trouble to break into your fat stores to make energy (by any pathway) until you have run out dietary sources to use. If you are eating enough to meet energy needs, your body doesn't need to get into your fat stores. If you eat more than you need, your body puts it in storage and you gain weight.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/weight-loss/low-carb-and-calories-2/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/lowcarb-lowfat-study-find_n_170056.html

The advantage that low carb diets have that make it easier for some to lose weight is that it is energetically more expensive than the traditional carbs --> glucose pathway, so you have to use more of the calories that you take in to create the glucose that you need. That would raise your basic operating costs for the day somewhat (say his BMR would normally be 2500 calories, maybe now it would be more like 3000 -- these are numbers made up as an example, I don't know what they would be exactly), but that isn't a license to eat until you explode. Once you exceed your operating cost for the day, your body has no need to burn body fat and any excess will go into storage.

I think the answer to this mystery is that since food intake, activity level, BMR, and exercise were not tracked while your brother was losing weight, it is likely that your estimates aren't showing the whole picture.

seraphinelle

I know that for me it's not the amount of carbs but the type of carbs. If I eat veggies - those come with fiber, they fill me up, and I feel great. If I eat bread, on the other hand, or sugary sweets - I get a sugar rush, then a crash and I want more, more, more and it's very difficult for me to control how much I eat. And obviously healthy fats and proteins are good for you too, so I have plenty of room for those foods as well if I'm not overdoing carbs.

I still end up with something like 100g of carbs a day, but also like 60+g of fiber, so I don't get the sugar rushes, and don't feel hungry and it's easy to for me to maintain. I don't really have to weigh things like that - I'm not going to overeat raw green beans or whatever to the point where I gain weight, so I can estimate and it comes out close enough. When I was eating starchy carbs, I'd really have to strictly watch portion sizes to keep it under control and felt hungry all the time.

I realize not everyone suffers from the same cravings and such. So if you can eat those things in moderation without a struggle, I wouldn't sweat it. If you're constantly craving more, it might be worth looking into reducing sugary/starchy carbs to see if it makes things easier for you. Sounds like you don't need to worry about it, but maybe the above helps make it make sense why some people do.

Through trial, error and successes, I do best steering clear of breads, pasta and starchy veggies as well. My daily carb intake usually ends up somewhere between 80 to 100g's per day. It works for me and also keeps me from having to measure and weight meticulously. It's really really difficult to overeat raw broccoli.

That's what I found. I did the low carb thing for weight loss initially, but realised my digestive system hates startchy food anyway.

I don't do bread or pasta (Ok, on occasion I have a sneaky croissant!)

LAW_714

This is just in from National Geographic:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

It confirms that the boogeyman is Fructose, also known as fruit sugar. Fructose is in almost every fruit and plant we eat, although obviously the percentage is highest in fruits. When you eat low carb, you automatically eat low Fructose as well as long as you properly count the carb in fruits.

Yeah, fructose is something that some researchers are looking into.

Having done a lot of reading on the subject (I can be geeky that way) the issue with fructose doesn't seem to be saying to run screaming from fruit. It is perhaps a good reason to start wondering about high fructose corn syrup being placed into so many things these days. From what I've read, the center of research on the subject seems to arise from the way that fructose is metabolized by the body. (And I'm going to be really oversimplyfing this. I realize there's all sorts of things concerning ATP that I'm bypassing. I know that I'm over simplifying to an extreme degree, but it's complicated).

Fructose can only be metabolilzed by the liver, which does so by more or less splitting fructose into both glucose and fat. So basically, in order for your body to deal with fructose at all, part of it has to be turned into fat. The rest is turned into glucose.

Glucose can be absorbed without being shunted off to your liver the way that fructose is (where, again, fructose is turned into glucose + fat as the method of dealing with it). All the heavy work out folks complaining about low carb diets, saying that they have to have the carbs for their workouts, there's truth to that. Aerobic exercises depletes your glycogen stores in your muscles. If you're eating carbs, your body has a quick, efficient way to smoothely replinish the glycogen.

Where you start running into some of the low carb concept is that when glucose isn't readily available to replenish glycogen, your body can begin converting part of your consumed protein or consumed fat or can even start burning your body fat (or muscle) to do so. But, as your body prefers to use glucose -- and there are reasons for that that I'll get to in a minute -- if you have a lot of glucose available, you're body is going to default to the glucose first.

Burning fat or protein is far less efficient than converting readily available glucose, so if your focus is on athletic performance, you probably prefer the readily available carbs. If your object is to burn off fat stores that you already have, you may be willing to sacrifice atheltic performance for fat burning.

Where fructose comes in is that, again, the only part of your body capable of dealing with fructose is your liver. Fructose cannot be converted into glycogen without first having been metabolized by the liver which "splits" it into fat and glucose.

Sucrose (old fashioned table sugar) is metabolized by first splitting it into fructose and glucose, with the fructose then having to be split into fat and glucose.

Factoring this out into an equation (that is NOT proportionally accurate, it's just a 'thought experiment' representation), in order for your body to metabolize these sugars what you roughly have is something like

glucose = glucose
fructose = glucose + fat
sucrose = glucose + (glucose+fat)

So if your object is to replish glycogen stores for atheltic performance, best choice may be starchy carbs. Your body can metabolize it most efficiently and your liver doesn't immediately convert part of it to fat.

Flipping this around, though, fructose -- PURE fructose -- which is handled by the liver isn't regulated by insulin, meaning it's going to be far slower to trigger an insulin response than something starchy (after all, your liver has to 'convert' fructose into fat and glucose first). This is why less starchy fruits are lower on the glycemic index than starchy ones.

Once you start getting into insulin issues, however, you start talking about a whole host of other things.

Excesss glucose in your bloodstream is bad. It's toxic. That's diabetes. A healthy body prevents there being too much sugar in your bloodstream by releasing insulin which tells your body to stop poking around,burning your fat, etc, and burn this excess blood sugar instead. Right NOW! It keeps your blood sugar in the heathy range by your muscles using what they can burning through glycogen, your body fat absorbing/expanding as it can, and other parts of it converted into triglycerides (fat) in your blood. When you're body more or less goes '*ahem* I'm aborbing all that I can!' and there's still yet. more. suger., your body makes yet MORE insulin trying to try to make your cells absorb the excess... and now you're on the way to insulin resistance, requiring more and more insulin to accomplish the same result until your pancreas cries uncle because it's taking more insulin than it can produce to lower your blood sugar... at which point you are the owner of Type 2 diabetes.

So the resulting contradictions are that glucose stimulates your insulin faster than fructose, which stimulates your body to deal with the blood sugar NOW, which -- if you're taking in more sugar than your brain and muscles need -- is stored as fat.

Fructose on the other hand, doesn't immediately stimulate insulin, but to handle it at all, part of it is metabolized as fat ...and part of it is turned into glucose which in turn stimulates insulin, and so on.

So basically, what you're left with is: your body needs glucose but not too much glucose (and how much you need is going to depend on how much you're burning). Try to avoid sugar spikes. You don't want to over-stimulate insulin. You don't want more glucose in your bloodstream than your body can use. So yeah, calories in/calories out is part of the equation.

Now the pro-side of fruit is that between the FIBER they contain and the fact that fructose doesn't immediately stimulate an insulin response, fruit it a bit of a time release capsule. Your blood sugar load is strung out over a longer period of time which minimizes sugar spikes by spreading it out. This was the way that your body was meant to behave (and it's the way that your body deals with fructose, but yeah, to metabolize it, it's still going to be split into fat and glucose).

Glucose is handled far more efficiently by the body, but excessive amounts of it are going to cause sugar spikes that will stimulate insulin that... well, we've been there already.

Basically, don't overconsume.

Eat fruit. It has a lot to recommend it.

But maybe think about avoiding high fructose corn syrup. It looks like it could possibly be the worst of both worlds... but that hasn't been proven which why they're researching the subject.

bcattoes

I already answered this for you a few pages back, ironanimal ~ my brother lost 7st while eating 3,000 calories plus on a typical day. None of us had ever calculated his calorific intake before, I did it today just out of curiosity & because you'd asked.
Clearly you won't believe anything you are told, you've simply decided it's not possible and so don't believe all the things low carb/keto dieters are saying.
If low calorie/low fat is soooo ingrained upon you that you truly cannot see any other way, then I can understand that you find it hard to believe that calories play no part in a low carb diet; but 3,000 calories a day and *still* losing 7st?
He did try low cal/low fat, but was always hungry and miserable - and who can carry on like that long-term if they've over 100lbs to lose?

I must admit that I never lost as fast as my brother, maybe only half as much, but he was a lot heavier than me.

Maybe understanding the basics of low carb might help - that the body is forced to use FAT as fuel, not carbohydrates....both dietary *and* body fat.

Didn't your previous post say your brother was 6 ft tall? 3000 calories may well have been a deficit for a man of that size.

TeaBea

For some people "low carb" is bumper sticker weight loss. They don't need to learn anything except, carbs are bad..... really, really bad. These "people" don't want to (or don't think they need to) learn anything about food ..... just carbs are bad..... really, really bad. Just cut out 1 thing .... and all their problems go away.

This was the low fat diet thing back in the day .....when all fats were created equal and ....fats were bad..... really, really bad.

Just FYI, those of us doing low carb aren't stupid, and most of us have done extensive research to find what works best with our bodies. My doctor reccomended it, and I am pretty sure she isn't stupid either. :noway:

You will notice ..... it says SOME people ..... not EVERY person. I do not assume that there aren't people who have to adapt to a low carb lifestyle (diabetics for example) .....just as I don't assume every low carber is educated.

There are informed people & uninformed people in all walks of life.

When I said bumper sticker approach...... what I meant was ..... those people who do not log food, do not measure food, and many don't bother to exercise, they just cut carbs .... that's all they do. There are people like that .... and they are not here (obviously). MFP would be too much effort.

AlabasterVerve

For some people "low carb" is bumper sticker weight loss. They don't need to learn anything except, carbs are bad..... really, really bad. These "people" don't want to (or don't think they need to) learn anything about food ..... just carbs are bad..... really, really bad. Just cut out 1 thing .... and all their problems go away.

This was the low fat diet thing back in the day .....when all fats were created equal and ....fats were bad..... really, really bad.

Just FYI, those of us doing low carb aren't stupid, and most of us have done extensive research to find what works best with our bodies. My doctor reccomended it, and I am pretty sure she isn't stupid either. :noway:

You will notice ..... it says SOME people ..... not EVERY person. I do not assume that there aren't people who have to adapt to a low carb lifestyle (diabetics for example) .....just as I don't assume every low carber is educated.

There are informed people & uninformed people in all walks of life.

When I said bumper sticker approach...... what I meant was ..... those people who do not log food, do not measure food, and many don't bother to exercise, they just cut carbs .... that's all they do. There are people like that .... and they are not here (obviously). MFP would be too much effort.

OMG! How dare those dumbasses not lose weight the same way I chose to ....

Fitnin6280

I think weight loss is a very personal expreience. What works well for one person may not work at all for another. As long as the person has their health as the ultimate goal, I don't understand why it is anyone else's concern how they do it.

ELVISDEAN

because they are STUPID
Elvis Dean

ELVISDEAN

no one in history has lost weight from consuming lower carbs..NO ONE

teddabod

I lower my carbs a bit during my cutting phases just before summer.

xlipservicex

I tried a low carb diet, well I did lose weight within a month my kidneys actually hurt, like I could barely walk they hurt so much. High protein, low carb diets put a lot of pressure on your kidneys and can have adverse effects in the long run.