Has anyone else tried low carb?

saverys_gal

*waves* Hi lioness! I was hoping you'd find us over here! Hehe.
I think we've lucked out though and only had one person say something negative about low carb eating...that's a change!

For what it's worth, I'm generally pretty neutral. If someone enjoys low carb better than something else, who am I to judge. That said, I'm against the push from the scientific and huckster community to get the masses to believe there's some sort of metabolic advantage associated with low carb diets.

Unfortunately, it seems that the low carb world is buried in a lot of zealotry.

Which is unfortunate since, while there are select populations who would probably do better with low carb dieting, there are many folks who'd do better avoiding low carb diets.

Of course you can blame it on the user for being ignorant. But when you have diet programs and "experts" telling people carbs make you fat... well... it's sort of hard not to generalize and knock the low carb approach as a whole. Granted, I'm well aware of the fact that it's not the approach per se... rather it's the fanaticism and BS marketers/authors who drive the ridiculousness.

Not really applicable to this thread... but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents at your comment about negativity towards low carb diets.

My comment was definitely not intended for you - I thought what you had to say was very well put and well thought out. It's what people need to hear!
People need to realize that not everyone can lose weight by counting calories. I've just seen too many threads around here where everyone says that calorie counting is the only way to go and god help you if you say you eat low carb. It fairly irritates me when people like the one earlier in this thread just go "it's not all it's cracked up to be" and "can you really eat that way for the rest of your life? Prob not." I know a lot of these groups of thoughts are to blamed on what's currently popular but people should read for themselves before giving out info, if you know what I mean.

stroutman81

My comment was definitely not intended for you -

Sorry, I should have clearly expressed that I was more using your commentary to reply to the entire bunch for general discussion. I knew you weren't directing at me. I just like jibber jabbering.

I thought what you had to say was very well put and well thought out. It's what people need to hear!

Well thanks!

People need to realize that not everyone can lose weight by counting calories. I've just seen too many threads around here where everyone says that calorie counting is the only way to go and god help you if you say you eat low carb. It fairly irritates me when people like the one earlier in this thread just go "it's not all it's cracked up to be" and "can you really eat that way for the rest of your life? Prob not." I know a lot of these groups of thoughts are to blamed on what's currently popular but people should read for themselves before giving out info, if you know what I mean.

I hear ya.

Personally, and this is strictly my own personal issue, I have an issue when people compare calories counting to carb counting. That's like arguing what brand or gasoline is better compared to various brands of oil. They're not one in the same.

Calories are a measure of energy. Carbs are one type of nutrient, and nutrients provide our bodies energy or calories.

And this is to the entire group... not just you specifically... but it bares repeating.

All diets that work, and by work I mean cause weight loss over extended periods of time, are controlling calories. You can manipulate your nutrient profile whichever way you want, but nothing's going to "work" unless calories are controlled.

But here are the kickers:

1) Controlling calories doesn't mean you have to count them. You can follow some set of guidelines (such as low carb) which are going to automatically control calories for you generally speaking.

2) While calories apply to everyone, the various ways of structuring nutrient profiles does not. I've clients who tend to respond best to very controlled carb diets. Insulin resistance can be a bi&*%!

These are the two messages that seem to get lost in the shuffle whenever people start talking about one particular way of dieting.

July24Lioness

My comment was definitely not intended for you -

Sorry, I should have clearly expressed that I was more using your commentary to reply to the entire bunch for general discussion. I knew you weren't directing at me. I just like jibber jabbering.

I thought what you had to say was very well put and well thought out. It's what people need to hear!

Well thanks!

People need to realize that not everyone can lose weight by counting calories. I've just seen too many threads around here where everyone says that calorie counting is the only way to go and god help you if you say you eat low carb. It fairly irritates me when people like the one earlier in this thread just go "it's not all it's cracked up to be" and "can you really eat that way for the rest of your life? Prob not." I know a lot of these groups of thoughts are to blamed on what's currently popular but people should read for themselves before giving out info, if you know what I mean.

I hear ya.

Personally, and this is strictly my own personal issue, I have an issue when people compare calories counting to carb counting. That's like arguing what brand or gasoline is better compared to various brands of oil. They're not one in the same.

Calories are a measure of energy. Carbs are one type of nutrient, and nutrients provide our bodies energy or calories.

And this is to the entire group... not just you specifically... but it bares repeating.

All diets that work, and by work I mean cause weight loss over extended periods of time, are controlling calories. You can manipulate your nutrient profile whichever way you want, but nothing's going to "work" unless calories are controlled.

But here are the kickers:

1) Controlling calories doesn't mean you have to count them. You can follow some set of guidelines (such as low carb) which are going to automatically control calories for you generally speaking.

2) While calories apply to everyone, the various ways of structuring nutrient profiles does not. I've clients who tend to respond best to very controlled carb diets. Insulin resistance can be a bi&*%!

These are the two messages that seem to get lost in the shuffle whenever people start talking about one particular way of dieting.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I do agree that there is a "metabolic" advantage" to eating an all natural, lower carb eating plan, so hat is where we disagree.

Explain that a pretty natural diet of 1,200 - 1,400 calories that includes grains and low fat will cause me to gain weight.

Where as, I can eat a natural diet of upwards of 2,000 - 2,200 calories - high fat, moderate protein, low carbs and lose weight effortlessly.

There are lots and lots of people that are just like me on this website, on other websites and in general in the world................

July24Lioness

I guess I must say that no matter what you call your plan...................we all agree that eating food in its most natural form is the way to go!!!

:drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:

Ge0rgiana

I guess I must say that no matter what you call your plan...................we all agree that eating food in its most natural form is the way to go!!!

:drinker: :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:

You said it, lady! :flowerforyou: These days, when I do choose to eat starches, I tend to lean more toward rice, sweet potatoes, or even corn (although Dr. Agatston doesn't particularly advocate corn.) I don't go in much for grains, and wheat is my absolute last choice. Something must be working, because lately my clothes are getting SO baggy (need to go weigh!), and this is in the midst of needing a thyroid hormone adjustment! Of course, I think everyone should give South Beach a whirl, but that's just because it's working so well for ME. Whatever plan you follow, it's always a good idea to eat non or minimally processed foods and look for all natural or even organic foods.

July24Lioness

Low carb diets have never been proven to be bad for your health. Many people have had tremendous success using this method. A lot of bodybuilders use a ketogenic type diet for cutting phase.
If you exercise alot though, it's gonna be more difficult because of energy depletion. I tried it before and can't hang with it personally. I did lose weight but felt like crap most of the time. It works fine for some people and not so good with others. If it works for you, go for it.

I was able to work out 2 times a day, 6 days a week. Had more energy than I knew what to do with. I was up 11 pm at night and then back up at 4 am cleaning and stuff before I went to work.

I lifted weights, did cardio, swam, took classes and worked with a trainer...........I lost 100 pounds in 6 months and kept it off for years until the glands of my endocrine system decided they wanted to act flaky.

stroutman81

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I do agree that there is a "metabolic" advantage" to eating an all natural, lower carb eating plan, so hat is where we disagree.

Hmmm, maybe we should define what we mean by metabolic advantage. I spend a lot of time reading all the available published, peer-reviewed research on low carb dieting and metabolic advantage. Maybe I'm missing something and you can provide me a link to the data or paper you're referring to? Or at least the abstract?

Everything I've seen doesn't indicate a metabolic advantage to low carbs. By metabolic advantage I mean by lowering or nixing carbohydrates metabolism actually speeds up as a direct result.

I'd appreciate the reference if you have one.

Explain that a pretty natural diet of 1,200 - 1,400 calories that includes grains and low fat will cause me to gain weight.

Sorry, I'm replying as I read along. By this, I'm assuming you're basing your "metabolic advantage" statement on anecdote. Which is fine... I'm happy you've found something that works for you.

However...

If I was forced to explain, I'd assume you're calorie intake estimation is off or inconsistent. But that's without knowing you. I'm basing that on the reams of research that clearly show how poorly even dietitians are at tracking their intakes. I'm also basing it on the research that shows people who "simply couldn't lose weight regardless" or the people who "would gain weight on extremely low calories" that, when placed in a metabolic ward with clinically controlled calories, would lose weight. I'm also basing that on my experience as a professional in this industry, but I don't want to appeal to authority here.

So please don't take offense as it has nothing to do with you, personally.

I can say unless you're in the low 100s in terms of weight... if you're truly gaining weight (not water weight, but true weight as in bodily tissues) while eating 1300 calories, then you've got something going on. It might be a medical problem. Outside the realm of medical issues, it's very easy to get a rough estimate of what sort of calories people expending each day based on weight and activity. Sure, there will be some variability on the individual level... but not the sort of variability we're talking about here. Metabolism simply doesn't vary that much across populations when adjusted for weight.

If something isn't medically wrong and the intake is accurate and you're gaining weight.... this is sort of joking and sort of serious.... maybe your body is some sort of walking fusion reactor that creates stored energy without an additional input from the environment (food). In this latter case, scientists would love to get their hands on you as creating energy out of nothing would be a huge step in solving the world's energy crisis.

There are lots and lots of people that are just like me on this website, on other websites and in general in the world................

Part of me is thinking I should simply back out of this thread. I'm saying that based on experience dealing with low carbers... the zealotry I spoke of earlier. I'm hoping I'm wrong and you can discuss this while remaining emotionally neutral. Mind you, I'm not very active on this forum (except for the last few days) compared to others... so I'm not familiar with the general "code of conduct".

I should also note that I'm not anti low-carb at all. I have a number of my clients following low carb regiments.

I'm simply interested in maintaining the integrity of information.

I do understand there are people everywhere on the net claiming that they gain weight on what should be huge calorie deficits. However, there isn't one piece of research that shows this as being possible. In all the cases where people are actually clinically controlled on the calorie front, weight is lost. And there are literally reams of research showing how people just suck at self-reporting their intakes.

Also, I've been in this industry for just over a decade. And you're right... I've come across quite a few clients who claim what you're claiming. Invariably though, things don't pan out the way they claim once we dig into the numbers. In fact, I can count on one hand how many times their claims stood the test of rigor and in those cases, there were actually medical issues explaining why their total daily energy expenditures were so much lower than would be assumed based on weight and activity.

As noted, low carb may very well be ideal for you. I'm sure it is based on what you've said here. But high carbs in the face of a calorie deficit isn't causing tissue gain. Especially not over extended periods of time. Sure, it might lead to water gain if you're coming off of a lower carb time period... but that's not a violation of energy physics.

At the end of the day, none of this really matters. People are going to eat however they believe best and hopefully they're smart enough to realize when something isn't working and to try something different. That's the name of the game.

Look forward to your reply and thanks for the conversation.

July24Lioness

I'm not being a zealot when I mentioned that there are a lot of people here like me...........

I am talking about those people that are faithfully counting calories (not over or under estimating), exercising and still not losing weight. Most of the people that I am speaking of "that are like me" also have undiagnosed medical issues.

There are so many chemicals and stuff in our food that it is ruining our bodies. I firmly believe this.

Yes, your correct. I have Thyroid, Pituitary and adrenal gland issues that affect my metabolism as well as every other system in my body. You can also add to that list, PCOS and diabetes...............

Yes, I was accurate on my calorie counts. Had my doctors baffled as I counted EVERYTHING that went into my mouth, even sugar free gum at the time..............

I will get some studies for you to read. But I am living proof!!!

I hope to chat with you further.

stroutman81

I'm not being a zealot when I mentioned that there are a lot of people here like me...........

Terribly sorry. I did not mean to imply you're a zealot. Not even remotely. What I meant was typically when I engage in factual conversation on forums regarding low carbohydrate dieting... the conversation spirals downward into the abyss of anecdotal "he said she said."

I'm not claiming that's the direction you're taking the conversation. I don't even know you and I try my best to remain emotionally neutral when discussing stuff on boards like this.

I'm simply explaining my experience in similar threads on other forums... as they seem to spring up time and time again since carbohydrates are the current red-headed step child to demonize. Before it was dietary fat.

I am talking about those people that are faithfully counting calories (not over or under estimating), exercising and still not losing weight. Most of the people that I am speaking of "that are like me" also have undiagnosed medical issues.

I'm going to respectfully dodge this claim. And I'm never referring to medically challenged people. The "rules" change for them. I'm solely speaking about normally functioning folks who claim to create stored energy while inputting inadequate energy into their bodies to cover their daily costs.

When I'm presenting claims on message boards, I have the actual peer-reviewed data to back them up. When I'm simply speaking based on experience and anecdote... I'm going to preface my claim letting the readers know I'm speaking anecdotally.

There are so many chemicals and stuff in our food that it is ruining our bodies. I firmly believe this.

I'm not talking about processed vs. unprocessed foods. I'm not interested in debating about processed vs. unprocessed. However, a friend of mine recently blogged about this debate, which some of you might find interesting:

http://weightology.net/thehealthsleuth/?p=139

In this particular debate, I'm talking about metabolic advantage to low carb dieting. Where is it?

Yes, your correct. I have Thyroid, Pituitary and adrenal gland issues that affect my metabolism as well as every other system in my body. You can also add to that list, PCOS and diabetes...............

Sorry to hear that. Your anecdotes make more sense now and don't necessarily apply to what I'm discussing here.

Yes, I was accurate on my calorie counts. Had my doctors baffled as I counted EVERYTHING that went into my mouth, even sugar free gum at the time..............

What sort of doctors were you dealing with that were monitoring your calorie intake? Were they using doubly labeled water to confirm your true intake?

Unfortunately I'm a believer that nobody is 100% accurate.

In fact, I know they're not simply because using calories as the "measuring stick" to track energy consumption is extremely outdated. As in 110+ years outdated.

The factors that we use for measuring energy in our foods are called the Atwater factors, which are 4, 4 and 9 kcals for protein, carbs and fat respectively. These are not perfect representations of what energy is available to the body. Atwater factors are estimates, and averages of metaboliseable energy. They are gross energy (Bomb) less the energy that is lost in the urine, feces, breath and skin. This is not the energy available to the body, but unfortunately we are stuck with using them for now.

What the body "sees" is the NET metaboliseable energy. This is the energy that is provided to the body after metabolic inefficiencies are accounted for. When viewed from the bird's eye level, different macronutrients have unique "energy" costs to breakdown and utilize them. For instance, protein requires the most energy to digest and utilize so even though 1 gram of protein and 1 gram of carb provides our body with "4 calories," that's on a gross basis. Not net. On the micro level, even different types within the same macronutrient family (digestible vs. nondigestible carb for instance) provides unique energy densities on a net basis.

So nobody is actually accurate b/c the entire system isn't accurate. There are ways to estimate these inefficiencies... but still... they're estimates.

And even if it were spot-on accurate, humans subconsciously do things they don't even realize. Here's a start at the mountain of research regarding energy intake reporting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12396160

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17197279

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9741036

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313427

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010905

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15251058

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15251058

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15251058

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19226926

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16536182

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010905

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7594141

My intent is not to discredit you. It is to show you that correlation does not always equal causation. It's fine to have a discussion based on our own unique experiences. That's what these forums are all about. But that's not why I'm here. I'm hear to chime in when I see claims being made that do not stand up to the body of research we have available thus far.

I'm not close minded. I realize there's a ton we need to know yet about our bodies and the effects of various nutritional protocols. But debating about the unknown is a dead end on this sort of medium if you ask me.

I will get some studies for you to read. But I am living proof!!!

Living proof of a metabolic advantage? Or something else?

To make a substantiated claim, you need to control for confounding variables, which is what science is all about. In free living organisms... there's too much "going on" to prove cause and effect, unfortunately. It's like the folks who do a billion crunches, start to see their abs, then claim that doing a billion crunches is the key to a lean stomach. This never minds the fact that they also completely overhauled their nutritional intake by controlling calories and eating healthier foods and started a balanced exercise routine at the same time. Not to mention the research that we have available pertaining to "spot reduction." Like I said... correlation is not causation and in free living settings, you're simply not going to be able to define causative variables.

I don't mean to be a hard *kitten*... I assure you I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I'm actually enjoying the conversation.

Thanks for your time.

PJilly

I'd just like to chime in here and report that I've had really good success at fat loss while still enjoying my carbs. The lowest I go is 45%, and the highest I've gone is 55%. As long as my total calories are consistent, the percentage of carbs seems to have no bearing on my fat loss. I've found I feel my best and function optimally at about 45 to 50% carbs, 20 to 25% fat, and 30% protein.

budgetqueen79

My opinion is I personally am finally being able to maintain a change of eating and I am doing it with low carb. I keep my carbs around 100-120 close as I can because I have PCOS and now finally losing and I exercise regularly. I could not do 1200-1500 cals a day without the lower carb because I would eat the whatever it is in and the box. I'm basically doing something like Medifast without their products and eating 2 meals a day. so like 5-6 shakes a day and 2 meals or something around that range. I have cheat days and go out to eat also. My diary is also open. Look at it and tell me what you think. I don't eat back my exercise calories because I am full and not hungry. Never had that feeling before either. If I have a sugar craving I get a sugar free menthol cough drop, menthol takes the taste of anything away. That's why many people who smoke methol cigarettes tend not to be overweight. Not all but some.