Lower Cals, Lower Carbs, Both?

Bonella

I'm carb cycling, with a little mix of Dolvett's 3-1-2-1 diet and it's working great. While I haven't lost a ton of weight, I'm down an entire size and the inches are melting off. I just started doing this around Halloween, so I'm happy with the result so far. I also feel great. Guess I should add I'm much older than most of you and this works for me.

Carnivor0us

Actually, before keto, I was not losing anything for months and my measurements were not changing whatsoever. I was eating 1500 calories a day. I eat about the same amount now, sometimes more if I work out more, but I'm actually losing weight AND inches. So no, I could not have achieved the same thing.

Then there are mistakes in your logging.

Unless there is an underlying medical condition or insulin resistance. But most people don't have to worry about this.

Perhaps not most, but a significant minority.

34blast

Many body builders mess around with carb cycling and seem to have luck. I'm older now and believe in balance in about everything in life. So I do something similar to the Zone diet rations 40-30-30. (carbs, protein, fat)

presbyreformed

BTW, I'm male (yes I know my picture doesn't help....) and yes I plan to do that ton of work and lot of nutrition. I liked that story about Staci, but it sounded a little like a sales pitch, although I didn't stick around to see.

Ah crap.. Sorry about that.. regardless, even men will struggle to build mass unless they are in a calorie deficit. BTW, i ran the numbers again and it should be 2200 calories instead of 1800 calories based on the fact that you are male. With the story of staci, i tend to read past a lot of stuff. Major points are she eats 3000-4000 calories and power lifts.

NP, it is hard to tell with no personal photo.
The way my current MFP routine is set up is that I have a starting of 1620 net calories per day and at least 5 days per week I get an MFP-calculated 550-600 extra exercise calories per day. I want to lose my middle fat and my overall is about 23% and I want to get that down, but I also need to build muscle to meet my goals. Right now I generally feel satiated most days and rarely go over calories unless I am forced through circumstances to eat fast food, so I'm not sure I want to eat any more. Are you suggesting 2200 net plus my daily exercise calories?

One more thing is that I am not necessarily interested in 'losing weight'; I just want to build muscle and lose fat. If I was 185lbs and squating 300 and benching 250 and 15% body fat I'd be a winner in my mind. Agreed?

mochamofitandhealthy

I've been doing lower calories and have not experienced weight loss success. I now plan to pay attention to (and lower) my carbs. I believe and hope this will be a key to losing weight for me (especially since I have impaired glucose tolerance).

ndj1979

I am disputing the fact that you can eat 1500 calories on a 500 cal deficit and lose nothing and then just simply change your macro composition and eat the same 1500 calories with the same 500 calorie deficit and then magically start losing weight...

If that did happen, I would suggest it's because the body adjusted the 'calories out' side of the equation.

It doesn't impossible to me that by adjusting what you eat, the body may adjust how the body is working.
An obvious one is stimulants - a bit of drug (caffeine, etc) and generally I would expect the body starts burning more.
For other factors which don't have such a direct think, it doesn't seem unreasonable this may also happen.

I agree with some others that there is absolutely no way anyone can say with final authority that any one prescription or theory is going to work with EVERY person.

Let's just assume this 1500/500 low carb high fat person is actually losing weight vs normal carb low fat and this is working for her, but not necessarily a prescription that works for everyone.

They don't have a cure for the common cold yet. What makes anyone think the exact prescription for every human being is always "all calories are all calories, lose 'em and you lose weight."

right so the laws of math and basic thermodynamics apply to some people and not others…???

ndj1979

I am not hating on Keto ..I am disputing the fact that if you eat 30% carbs at 1500 cals a day and this is a 500 calorie deficit that you will not lose weight BUT if you consume 1500 cals a day with the same 500 calorie deficit and all you is replace carbs with fat that you are going to somehow lose more weight...both methods are a 500 calorie deficit...does not matter how you create said deficit, jut as long as you do...

And you assume that what you eat does not impact caloric output whatsoever? I'm not saying it does, but research seems to indicate it might. Recent research has shown that you could be outputting up to 300 calories a day extra by eating a high-fat diet (2100 calories/week).

Don't get me wrong - I think/know caloric intake matters. What I'm not convinced of is that our bodies are so simple that it's the be-all end-all when it comes to calculating weight loss.

That's besides the point though. All nutritional studies have flaws - the human body is too complex - and you can only take what comes from them with a grain a salt.

What matters is that it has worked for many of us. We used to eat low-fat and tracked calories. Now we eat low-carb and track calories. It's clear to me which one I lose weight with more easily. We're sharing our experience.

I am disputing the fact that you can eat 1500 calories on a 500 cal deficit and lose nothing and then just simply change your macro composition and eat the same 1500 calories with the same 500 calorie deficit and then magically start losing weight...

Just out of curiosity (because I don't have a dog in this fight), then what is the point of 'hitting your macros'? There seems to be a large group of people on here who constantly say they eat whatever they want, as long as it hits their macros. So, if macros aren't important, then what is the point? Because just like body shapes are different, calorie burns are different, and genetics are different, wouldn't it stand to reason that macro needs for each person could be different? And why would that be bad? I know lots of folks who do different things and do what works for them, can't it be the same with this? They are not saying they aren't following the 'rules' of calories in vs. calories out, just the lay of the macros. So, I'm confused by why this couldn't be true? If body builders want to really bulk up, they change their macros to up protein with overall calorie intake being up. Couldn't it be the same for someone wanting to lose to up their protein but with overall lower calorie intake? Because if you need to up it to build muscle, seems to be true that you would need to up it when losing if you already have a lower amount of muscle.... I'm not arguing either way. I truly don't know and just at this point feel like you should do what works for you, your life, and your body and let others figure out their own macro sets.

macros have nothing to do with weight loss…they are about body composition …

again - if person A eats high protein/low carb is in an 500 cal deficit …and person B eats high protein 30% carbs and is in a 500 cal deficit…why should person B lose and Person A does not? The same law of math and thermodynamics apply to person A and B ...

psuLemon

NP, it is hard to tell with no personal photo.
The way my current MFP routine is set up is that I have a starting of 1620 net calories per day and at least 5 days per week I get an MFP-calculated 550-600 extra exercise calories per day. I want to lose my middle fat and my overall is about 23% and I want to get that down, but I also need to build muscle to meet my goals. Right now I generally feel satiated most days and rarely go over calories unless I am forced through circumstances to eat fast food, so I'm not sure I want to eat any more. Are you suggesting 2200 net plus my daily exercise calories?

One more thing is that I am not necessarily interested in 'losing weight'; I just want to build muscle and lose fat. If I was 185lbs and squating 300 and benching 250 and 15% body fat I'd be a winner in my mind. Agreed?

Well keep in mind, that you cannot build new lean body mass and lose fat at the same time. One requires a calorie deficit and the other a surplus. What you can do is work to maintain your muscle (with protein and strength training) and cutting fat. Also, when I suggest 2200, i mean total calories. This is the TDEE - 20% method. If you track accurately, you can then determine your true maintenance calories. For example, I am 5'11, 185, 31 yo, desk job and 6 hours of exercise a week. I eat 2300-2500 calories and average 1 lb per week loss. This means my TDEE or maintenance calories are around 2800-3000. Also, I have found that eating the same goal daily, is much easier to manage, especially when it comes to managing my macro's.

So I would suggest eating 2200 daily (macro's 40/30/30) and track with a food scale. Monitor progress over 4-6 weeks and adjust from there. Once you get down to a low enough body fat (generally near 10%) then you can determine if you want to bulk. Generally, this is the accepted path. But if you want to bulk early, it's up to you.

presbyreformed

NP, it is hard to tell with no personal photo.
The way my current MFP routine is set up is that I have a starting of 1620 net calories per day and at least 5 days per week I get an MFP-calculated 550-600 extra exercise calories per day. I want to lose my middle fat and my overall is about 23% and I want to get that down, but I also need to build muscle to meet my goals. Right now I generally feel satiated most days and rarely go over calories unless I am forced through circumstances to eat fast food, so I'm not sure I want to eat any more. Are you suggesting 2200 net plus my daily exercise calories?

One more thing is that I am not necessarily interested in 'losing weight'; I just want to build muscle and lose fat. If I was 185lbs and squating 300 and benching 250 and 15% body fat I'd be a winner in my mind. Agreed?

Well keep in mind, that you cannot build new lean body mass and lose fat at the same time. One requires a calorie deficit and the other a surplus. What you can do is work to maintain your muscle (with protein and strength training) and cutting fat. Also, when I suggest 2200, i mean total calories. This is the TDEE - 20% method. If you track accurately, you can then determine your true maintenance calories. For example, I am 5'11, 185, 31 yo, desk job and 6 hours of exercise a week. I eat 2300-2500 calories and average 1 lb per week loss. This means my TDEE or maintenance calories are around 2800-3000. Also, I have found that eating the same goal daily, is much easier to manage, especially when it comes to managing my macro's.

So I would suggest eating 2200 daily (macro's 40/30/30) and track with a food scale. Monitor progress over 4-6 weeks and adjust from there. Once you get down to a low enough body fat (generally near 10%) then you can determine if you want to bulk. Generally, this is the accepted path. But if you want to bulk early, it's up to you.

OK, I am trying your suggestion. I have set my net calories daily to 2200 with a 40/30/30 goal and not recording the calories for my exercise. Today is turning out to be a pretty good indicator. I have been sated all day and am looking at 200 calories left over.

pattyproulx

Ok - but, you're assuming the 2000 calorie output is consistent no matter what you eat, and that's what I'm disputing (or at least the main thing I was disputing in that post).

To be able to calculate a 500 calorie deficit, you need to know your exact caloric output, which is impossible for someone to measure day-to-day (yes there is technology that can help do that, but people don't have them handy at home).

Studies have shown that our bodies can burn an extra 300 calories by eating high-fat (I'm not stating this as a fact; this is simply a result of a study that could explain the variance in weight loss). This means that someone eating 1500 calories low-carb and someone eating 1500 calories of low-fat could have a deficit difference of 2100 calories / week, which is about 5lbs over a couple of months.

Again, that's just a possible explanation for weight loss being different at an identical caloric intake. There are a number of possible explanations for this (including, as some people have mentioned, faulty logging).

Either way, it works for many of us and there's nothing you can say that could make me think that it doesn't work for me because I've done it both ways and the difference was evident.

link to said peer reviewed studies please.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120626163801.htm

“Total calories burned plummeted by 300 calories on the low-fat diet compared to the low-carbohydrate diet, which would equal the number of calories typically burned in an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity,”

LolBroScience

Ok - but, you're assuming the 2000 calorie output is consistent no matter what you eat, and that's what I'm disputing (or at least the main thing I was disputing in that post).

To be able to calculate a 500 calorie deficit, you need to know your exact caloric output, which is impossible for someone to measure day-to-day (yes there is technology that can help do that, but people don't have them handy at home).

Studies have shown that our bodies can burn an extra 300 calories by eating high-fat (I'm not stating this as a fact; this is simply a result of a study that could explain the variance in weight loss). This means that someone eating 1500 calories low-carb and someone eating 1500 calories of low-fat could have a deficit difference of 2100 calories / week, which is about 5lbs over a couple of months.

Again, that's just a possible explanation for weight loss being different at an identical caloric intake. There are a number of possible explanations for this (including, as some people have mentioned, faulty logging).

Either way, it works for many of us and there's nothing you can say that could make me think that it doesn't work for me because I've done it both ways and the difference was evident.

link to said peer reviewed studies please.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120626163801.htm

“Total calories burned plummeted by 300 calories on the low-fat diet compared to the low-carbohydrate diet, which would equal the number of calories typically burned in an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity,”

Few Points...

Only conducted in overweight or obese individuals, and if I'm not mistaken half of them were hospital intake patients and the other's were off site individuals who weren't strictly monitored. Which would allow them to freely consume other foods, drinks, etc not prescribed to them. Also, nearly half the study dropped out. which left only a sample size of 21 people over a short term study.

Furthermore, I couldn't recall finding anything that said they had readjusted caloric intake for their individual needs post dieting... (I could've missed this though as i read the ACTUAL study, not the link to the publication which you provided). It's fairly common knowledge that when dieting over a lengthy period of time metabolism can slow a bit. So if no adjustment was made, and someone goes back to eating the way they were especially without tracking their intake... obviously they'll gain the weight back? The study wasn't able to draw any conslusions on the specific thermic effects of various foods.

LolBroScience

Also, as a follow up article written in recently in October 2013 also in the Daily Science which makes reference the the article you linked:

""The body has several defence mechanisms against weight loss, such as increased hunger, lower energy metabolism and relapse back to old habits," says research team member Dr Erik Hemmingsson. "If the problem of rebound weight gain didn't exist, obesity would be relatively easy to treat. There have been several possible methods to facilitate long-term weight control over the years, and now the database was large enough to make a systematic evaluation of existing studies."

In their meta-analysis, the team combined the results of 20 published scientific studies including a total of 3,017 participants, who were either obese or overweight at the start of the weight loss process. The various studies examined the effects of drugs, meal replacements, high protein diets, dietary supplements and exercise on rebound weight gain after an intensive weight loss, low-calorie diet (less the 1,000 calories a day).

Even though the study shows that rebound weight gain is more the rule than the exception, the researchers found that several strategies obviously helped to reduce the unwanted effect: anti-obesity drugs, powdered meal replacements, and a high protein diet. Low glycaemic index (GI) food was also effective, although the data in that case came from a single study, which the researchers say makes the conclusions less reliable."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031090307.htm

pattyproulx

Also, as a follow up article written in recently in October 2013 also in the Daily Science which makes reference the the article you linked:

""The body has several defence mechanisms against weight loss, such as increased hunger, lower energy metabolism and relapse back to old habits," says research team member Dr Erik Hemmingsson. "If the problem of rebound weight gain didn't exist, obesity would be relatively easy to treat. There have been several possible methods to facilitate long-term weight control over the years, and now the database was large enough to make a systematic evaluation of existing studies."

In their meta-analysis, the team combined the results of 20 published scientific studies including a total of 3,017 participants, who were either obese or overweight at the start of the weight loss process. The various studies examined the effects of drugs, meal replacements, high protein diets, dietary supplements and exercise on rebound weight gain after an intensive weight loss, low-calorie diet (less the 1,000 calories a day).

Even though the study shows that rebound weight gain is more the rule than the exception, the researchers found that several strategies obviously helped to reduce the unwanted effect: anti-obesity drugs, powdered meal replacements, and a high protein diet. Low glycaemic index (GI) food was also effective, although the data in that case came from a single study, which the researchers say makes the conclusions less reliable."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031090307.htm

Good read - thanks.

Ya, I wasn't claiming the study to be definitive or anything. All I was claiming is that it's not necessarily as cut and dry as caloric intake and that the types of foods you eat, amongst other things, could potentially have an impact on your caloric output (which is incredibly difficult to gauge).

To me, what's important is that I know that dropping carbs has worked for me (even when comparing to a similar intake of calories). I don't know why it has but I will continue doing it since it works.
I'm obviously curious as to why it works though and I was thinking that this could be a potential explanation for it.