Please explain low carbs and it's magical proprieties

ladymiseryali

OP, you're better off just joining one of the keto groups here. All you're going to get is keto-haters. Not worth the drama.

mungowungo

Science? You want Science? Here is some science for you. Happy reading.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892194/

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/578.long

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/1/23.long

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-008-3274-2

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02290.x/full

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637

But I really don't know why I bothered posting these links to real scientific studies because it is well known that the posters on this board know more about health, nutrition and how the human body actually does work than any old PhD that did a study for say the New England Journal of Medicine.

AlabasterVerve

I need it explained in simple terms from those who swear by it. I feel like a moron but I really do not understand how you can lose faster than just a calories deficit and I am not talking about glycogen or water weight. My friend is doing it but is unable to explain how it work lol

Thank you

It works by restoring your natural appetite. Do you remember when you were a kid and your were outside playing and your mom had to make you come in to eat? Once you sat down and started eating you realized you were starving and ate until your were full and then stopped eating and didn't eat again until you were hungry. Eating a high carb/sugar diet (I'm assuming that was the cause, I don't actually know) threw that normal appetite out of whack. I was constantly eating because I was always hungry. Even if I wasn't physically hungry I had an anxious, I-need-to-eat type of feeling that is horrible so you eat to make it go away but you never really get full. So of course you're going to pack on the pounds.

The usual reason given for that is that it's all in your head. They call you an "emotional eater" and tell you you have to figure out what feelings your stuffing down with food. And then there's all the tricks -- journal how you're feeling when you ate, put your fork down between each bite, drink a glass of water before each meal... the list goes on and on.

Guess what? In a matter of three or four weeks eating a low carb, high fat diet all of that went away and I have a normal appetite again for the first time in years. I get hungry, I eat and then I'm satisfied and don't eat again until I'm hungry. I can not even describe how it feels to go from being constantly hungry to having a normal appetite again. I believe at the time I used the word miraculous to describe it and I still feel that way.

I don't know the biological mechanisms for why this happens but it is real. I lose weight because of a calories deficit, of course, but that is not really the reason why a low carb diet works for me. It works because it fixes the underlying cause for why I was over eating in the first place.

Mr_Knight

Science? You want Science? Here is some science for you. Happy reading.

I looked at every one of those - not a single one addresses the original question.

As a reminder, the question was: how would "low carb" dieting cause even more weight loss than would be expected just from caloric deficits?

fruttibiscotti

It is a low carb diet that in 2008 was endorsed by the Swedish health and welfare board, which is the first time in history that a low carb diet was ever endorsed by a national health board.

The only low-carb diet "endorsed" in Sweden calls for 40% of calories to be derived from carbs. That is *far* above the levels advocated by the low-carb faithful.

Quote from Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU):

…a greater increase in HDL cholesterol (“the good cholesterol”) without having any adverse affects on LDL cholesterol (“the bad cholesterol”). This applies to both the moderate low-carbohydrate intake of less than 40 percent of the total energy intake, as well as to the stricter low-carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrate intake is less than 20 percent of the total energy intake. In addition, the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides.

You can download their entire report here, it is in Swedish, but if your Google translator is working properly, it will translate it for you...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/

Mr_Knight

And the goal posts get moved again...

LolBroScience

Science? You want Science? Here is some science for you. Happy reading.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892194/

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/578.long

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/1/23.long

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-008-3274-2

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02290.x/full

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637

But I really don't know why I bothered posting these links to real scientific studies because it is well known that the posters on this board know more about health, nutrition and how the human body actually does work than any old PhD that did a study for say the New England Journal of Medicine.

LMAO. I haven't read all of the studies, but the first 3 concluded the same sort of changes in body composition in both diets.

Also, I don't know if you noticed... OP isn't obese either.

wheird

Science? You want Science? Here is some science for you. Happy reading.

I looked at every one of those - not a single one addresses the original question.

As a reminder, the question was: how would "low carb" dieting cause even more weight loss than would be expected just from caloric deficits?

I read 4 of them. Three dealt with High carb vs Low Fat and one substantiated that there was little difference in weight loss between the high carb diet and low carb diet.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/578.long

LolBroScience

It is a low carb diet that in 2008 was endorsed by the Swedish health and welfare board, which is the first time in history that a low carb diet was ever endorsed by a national health board.

The only low-carb diet "endorsed" in Sweden calls for 40% of calories to be derived from carbs. That is *far* above the levels advocated by the low-carb faithful.

Quote from Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU):

…a greater increase in HDL cholesterol (“the good cholesterol”) without having any adverse affects on LDL cholesterol (“the bad cholesterol”). This applies to both the moderate low-carbohydrate intake of less than 40 percent of the total energy intake, as well as to the stricter low-carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrate intake is less than 20 percent of the total energy intake. In addition, the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides.

You can download their entire report here, it is in Swedish, but if your Google translator is working properly, it will translate it for you...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/

Why not endorse an eating lifestyle that promotes eating REAL FOOD with a macronutrient proportion that does not promote fat storage and diabetes?

---

Please address this.

fruttibiscotti

Science? You want Science? Here is some science for you. Happy reading.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892194/

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/578.long

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/1/23.long

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-008-3274-2

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02290.x/full

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637

But I really don't know why I bothered posting these links to real scientific studies because it is well known that the posters on this board know more about health, nutrition and how the human body actually does work than any old PhD that did a study for say the New England Journal of Medicine.

And we have an obesity and diabetes 2 epidemic which continues to snowball....hmmmmmm, what's the meaning of insanity? Hope you like paying taxes, we will certainly need more to keep up this insanity.

wheird

And we have an obesity and diabetes 2 epidemic which continues to snowball....hmmmmmm, what's the meaning of insanity? Hope you like paying taxes, we will certainly need more to keep up this insanity.

Diabetes is primarly affected by genetics and to a lesser degree, fat mass and diet.

As far as obesity, that is because the majority of people, in the US at least, do not pay much attention to their diet. And the overall teaching of actual nutrition is lacking.

wheird

Also, since i love posting this poster that shows the metabolic pathways for energy conversion and fat storage.

tigersword

This is a valid question Yanicka, and I'm sure I'm going to get a whole bunch of bloggers on MFP attacking me on this, but I will give it a go anyway....

I discovered LCHF, which stands for low carb high fat, on a business trip to Scandinavia. It is a low carb diet that in 2008 was endorsed by the Swedish health and welfare board, which is the first time in history that a low carb diet was ever endorsed by a national health board. When I returned home, I decided to take the plunge and go on the diet, and after being on it for several months, I cannot believe how well it works, not only for weight loss but also skin cleared up, sleep better, more energy, no more hunger pains, allergies gone, etc. I've been on MFP for a long time, without success, and it wasn't until I switched to LCHF that I finally figured it out and consistently losing at least 1 lb per week. I'm also noticing the LCHF is picking up speed in other parts of the world, including US and Canada, endorsed by medical doctors and universities with medical faculty.

The low carb diet is based on the premise that we have two metabolic regimes: glycolysis and ketosis. We have these two metabolic states because of the survival mechanisms that we inherited through evolution. These two metabolic regimes control two very important hormones, called insulin and leptin. Insulin controls the amount of sugar we ingest that is stored as fat, and leptin controls the signal that goes back to the brain saying "stop eating, I'm full". During the glycolysis regime, insulin is promoted to convert sugar to fat and store fat, while the leptin hormone signal is blocked - result is sugar is stored as fat, and brain doesn't get the "stop eating, I'm full signal". During ketosis, insulin levels remain low, and therefore depressed or no conversion of sugar to fat, and leptin signal does not get blocked, telling the brain "stop eating, I'm full" when sufficient food is eaten.

Through evolutionary process, we developed survival mechanism to thrive through changes in food availability during the seasons. During seasons when there is high carb foods available (like strawberries, peaches, etc) the advantageous metabolic regime is glycolysis - because it "fattens" you up in preparation for the subsequent "lean" seasons, and your leptin signal is blocked, so it causes you to "gorge". During the season without availability of high carb foods, your body survives perfectly well on ketosis, eating mainly a protein and fat rich diet (I.e. Animal rich diet and not much fruit) as well as burning your body's stored fat and leptin signal gets to your brain telling you to stop eating when full. We live in a modern food economy, where with agricultural and transport industry, we no longer have seasonal food deprivation (I.e. Strawberries are available year round). Also, the work it used to take to gather foods has been minimized with mechanical means, so for a few cents today you can have a huge plate of spaghetti - imagine what it would take if you were to make pasta noodles from grain sources without use of machines or tools. We are in permanent glycolysis metabolic state, no more need for ketosis for survival, and therefore in a state with insulin levels promoting fat storage, and leptin blocking the "I'm full, stop eating" signal. As a result, to stay lean in a permanent glycolysis state (which is possible) you must expend many hours at the gym, burning your calories - seems a bit silly (why eat calories to burn them at the gym - it's like forcing yourself to make more money so that you can buy more pairs of jeans, when you only need a couple of jeans to begin with).

A good site providing free advice on LCHF by a medical doctor is www.dietdoctor.com. There are no gimmicks, no powders, no bars....just real science based advice and real food discussed. There are also universities with medical faculty who endorse and provide science-based evidence on health benefits of low carb eating, like the university of California at San Francisco.

Ok, I know what's going to happen now....a bevy of bloggers who are going to rip this apart. Some are pretty outright nasty commentators, and many of which in past blogs have told me that there is nothing wrong with eating highly processed food, fast food, junk food and sodas. Meanwhile, the obesity and diabetes 2 epidemic is getting out of control and will soon present a terrible challenge to the healthcare industry and taxpayers. Here's a thought...how about if we eat foods that does not cause fat gain, food addiction or hunger pains, and that does not require us to spend hours in the gym. How about if we eat real food, resembling what it looks like from animal or plant origin, instead of processed garbage. How about if we reduce our carbon footprint, and not have industrial food industry making highly processed junk, and shipping it all over the place. How about if we don't eat more due to food addictions, saving money on food, and being healthier? Why not endorse an eating lifestyle that promotes eating REAL FOOD with a macronutrient proportion that does not promote fat storage and diabetes?

Just to start with, insulin does NOT promote converting sugar into fat. Insulin is the main driver of pushing nutrients (like glucose) into muscle tissue and organs that need the glucose for energy. It's also the main driver of growth hormone for muscle development and repair. Also, insulin doesn't block leptin, that's ghrelin's job. Ghrelin is the hormone that signals hunger. Insulin is actually one of the biggest hormones to tell you you're full, that's why protein is so filling, because it spikes insulin.

And as far as fat storage goes, that ONLY happens when eating in a caloric surplus. You can eat 0 carbs, and eat a surplus of calories, and have plenty of fat storage. Dietary fat is actually very quickly and easily stored in adipose tissue, and makes up the majority of an adipose cell.

Wetcoaster

I like what Lyle McDonald says



"
My Comments

This study certainly has a couple of strengths, controlled calorie levels (with food provision) and equal protein intake between groups being the two main ones. Weaknesses are the small sample size and the use of Tanita body fat measurement to track body composition. Changes in water balance can affect that method significantly and diets that manipulate carbohydrate content tend to impact significantly on water levels in the body.

With that said, this study adds to the data set suggesting that, if calories and protein intake are identical, there is little to no metabolic advantage (in terms of fat or weight loss) to full blown ketogenic diets. They work at least as well, mind you, but not better.

Now, as I discuss in the series of articles on Comparing the Diets, there still may be circumstances where very-low carbohydrate/ketogenic diets may still be preferred, even given the researchers comments above.

For many individuals, the biggest ‘metabolic advantage’ of very-low carbohdyrate diets may be one of food/calorie control. Many people seem to show what might be popularly called ‘carbohydrate addiction’ (a term that is massively debated among obesity researchers) where eating even small amounts of carbs makes them want to eat more. In that case, a full blown removal of carbohydrates from the diet may be the only realistic way to limit caloric intake.

Related to this, for many, spending time on a very-low carbohydrate diet seems to change taste preferences: carbohydrates can often be reintroduced after some period without the loss of food control that occurred prior to the diet.

I mentioned in the introduction that severely insulin resistant individual seem to get health benefits from extreme carbohydrate restriction. For leaner dieters, as I discuss in both The Ultimate Diet 2.0 and The Stubborn Fat Solution, extreme carbohydrate restriction tends to help with stubborn lower body fat mobilization.

But clearly in other situations, moderate carbohydrates diets (still containing sufficient protein mind you) may be superior. For people who can control their food intake, many simply feel better with more moderate carbohydrate intakes, their training (especially high intensity training such as weights) doesn’t suffer as much, and they don’t feel quite as lethargic. Again, these issues are discussed in detail in the Comparing the Diets series.

I guess my point is that there is too much variance between individuals and their needs to claim that any single diet is inherently superior for all people and all situations. As this study suggests, given identical calories and protein intake, there doesn’t seem to be any inherent metabolic advantage in terms of total fat loss to a full blown ketogenic diet, at least not when compared to a moderate carbohydrate diet with an identical amount of protein.

As I’ve noted above, there may be other ‘advantages’ unrelated to fat loss that are still important. Basically, the choice of diet may come down to other issues than fat loss per se. A diet that makes someone feel terrible isn’t one that they are likely to stick to for very long; a diet that does is one that may be the ‘superior’ one for that person."

TigerBite

Narwhal magic!

fruttibiscotti

It is a low carb diet that in 2008 was endorsed by the Swedish health and welfare board, which is the first time in history that a low carb diet was ever endorsed by a national health board.

The only low-carb diet "endorsed" in Sweden calls for 40% of calories to be derived from carbs. That is *far* above the levels advocated by the low-carb faithful.

Quote from Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment (SBU):

…a greater increase in HDL cholesterol (“the good cholesterol”) without having any adverse affects on LDL cholesterol (“the bad cholesterol”). This applies to both the moderate low-carbohydrate intake of less than 40 percent of the total energy intake, as well as to the stricter low-carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrate intake is less than 20 percent of the total energy intake. In addition, the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides.

You can download their entire report here, it is in Swedish, but if your Google translator is working properly, it will translate it for you...

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://www.sbu.se/sv/Publicerat/Gul/Mat-vid-fetma-/

Why not endorse an eating lifestyle that promotes eating REAL FOOD with a macronutrient proportion that does not promote fat storage and diabetes?

---

Please address this.

I already did previously in this thread:

Here's a TED talk presentation by medical doctor Dr. Peter Attia:

http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_attia_what_if_we_re_wrong_about_diabetes.html

ETA: grammar fix

mmapags

Just to start with, insulin does NOT promote converting sugar into fat. Insulin is the main driver of pushing nutrients (like glucose) into muscle tissue and organs that needs the glucose for energy. It's also the main driver of growth hormone for muscle development and repair. Also, insulin doesn't block leptin, that's ghrelin's job. Ghrelin is the hormone that signals hunger. Insulin is actually one of the biggest hormones to tell you you're full, that's why protein is so filling, because it spikes insulin.

And as far as fat storage goes, that ONLY happens when eating in a caloric surplus. You can eat 0 carbs, and eat a surplus of calories, and have plenty of fat storage. Dietary fat is actually very quickly and easily stored in adipose tissue, and makes up the majority of an adipose cell.

Whoa! Like actual physiology and accurate explanations of what insulin really does and stuff. How radical!

Sarahnade42x

Are you thinking of a ketogenic low carb diet? That plan basically relies on the idea that:
-Your cells (especially your brain) need glucose (a carbohydrate) to produce energy.
-If your body doesn't have enough carbohydrate, it'll turn stored fat into something called a "ketone body" that can be used for energy instead. This uses up fat storage.

I don't swear by this diet; I actually don't think it's a good idea at all. Ketones are a much less efficient energy source and you'll most likely feel fatigued or foggy after the switch (your brain would be the first organ to suffer from a drop in glucose levels). Also consider how high your blood lipid profile would be on a low-carb, high-fat diet. Not good. Personally, I'd rather give my body adequate levels of all the nutrients it needs instead of pseudo-starve it and hope the ketogenesis makes me drop a few pounds.

Can you provide sources for your statements? As in peer reviewed scientific literature, or medical doctor advice on his/her website, or information disseminated by a university with medical faculty? Very easy to state claims without back up of sources.

Absolutely I'm finishing a neuroscience degree with a strong background in biochemistry and human physiology, but apparently PubMed links can make anyone on this site more credible, so let's do it.

You might not have access to the full text, so I screen-shotted the important things to note (although if you do have access, I recommend reading the entire paper over excerpts):

To support my comments on fatigue and weight loss efforts: http://snapplr.com/2hgg On blood lipids and overall health recommendations: http://snapplr.com/hpaz
White, A.M. et al. (2007). Blood Ketones Are Directly Related to Fatigue and Perceived Effort during Exercise in Overweight Adults Adhering to Low-Carbohydrate Diets for Weight Loss: A Pilot Study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107, 1792–1796.
https://www-clinicalkey-com.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/#!/ContentPlayerCtrl/doPlayContent/1-s2.0-S0002822307014757

Many many studies will tell you that ketogenic diets don't make weight loss any more successful in the long term, even if they result in an initial drop. Some reading suggestions:
Astrup, A et al (2004). Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets: hoax or an effective tool for weight loss? The Lancet 364, 897–899.
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/science/article/pii/S0140673604169869

Nordmann AJ et al (2006). Effects of low-carbohydrate vs low-fat diets on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 166, 285–293.
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=409791

I'm totally open to more discussion and reading (there are aspects of these articles, and others - that I agree and disagree with), but at this point I don't think following a low carb ketogenic diet is advisable -- definitely not for me or my health goals. I'm much more strongly convinced by the data on general caloric restriction and health, and I think you would be too if you looked into that.

mmapags

I like what Lyle McDonald says

I guess my point is that there is too much variance between individuals and their needs to claim that any single diet is inherently superior for all people and all situations. As this study suggests, given identical calories and protein intake, there doesn’t seem to be any inherent metabolic advantage in terms of total fat loss to a full blown ketogenic diet, at least not when compared to a moderate carbohydrate diet with an identical amount of protein.

This was also Krieger's conclusion. And he was self admittedly biased in favor of finding an advantage to the low carb diet. For me, Krieger and McDonald are objective and have integrity as opposed to Attia who, together with people like Sisson and Taubes are all working together to enhance each other's marketing efforts to sell books.

toddis

I like this quote from the A TO Z study:
" the reported effects of the current study should be interpreted as resulting from the combination of macronutrient changes that occur when following low- vs high-carbohydrate diets, not just changes in carbohydrates alone"

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916