Why does low carb work better then just eating whatever?

tinatw

Hi ya,

I don't know if it's just all in my head but when i'm counting calories and eating what ever the hell I want I don't seem to lose no where near as much as I do if I'm counting calories and cutting carbs down...why is this? surely it's meant to be about calories in calories out? does anyone else watch their carb intake? at the moment I'm just trying to keep it below 50g a day but I don't mind where them 50 come from like if it's from chocolate or bread, just as long as i don't go over....would appreciate any help

cheers

Tina
x

TonyStark30

Bloat, water weight, sugar crash makes you eat more later, unless you weigh Carb portion estimates can be way out.

So basically Low carb does less things that can dishearten you or make you fail.

Shriffee

I'm also trying to cut down on carbs and only eat them from fruits and veggies. This is my understanding of why carbs make it harder to lose weight: Carbs break down into sugar, elevated sugar in your blood stream makes you secrete insulin, and insulin stores the sugar in your muscle/fat cells for later use.

Huffdogg

It's just your psychology. Everyone has different things that affect their appetite in a variety of ways.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

jeffpettis

When you lower your carbs a "side effect" will be lower calories unless you replace those calories with something else. Any "diet" only works because of a calorie deficit. For weight loss it's not going to matter where those calories come from as long as you are consuming less of them than you are burning.

In the short term carbs can cause you to retain water but over the long term it's really not going to matter much for strictly weight loss, body composition is a whole other thing all together.

rondaj05

That's what works for me also. Plenty of people will say calories in/calories out. I'm not going to argue with them about it, I know what works for me. Everyone is different.

PhearlessPhreaks

When you're eating less carbs, do you make up for the caloric difference with other foods? I ask because if you're simply eliminating a large amount of calories via carbohydrates without replacing those calories elsewhere (protein, namely) then all you're doing is creating a larger calorie deficit, which of course means you'll lose weight more quickly.

If, however, you're eating (roughly) the same number of calories with or without carbs, I'd say it might have something to do with the body having less "easy" energy. Carbohydrates break down most quickly and are the first things used for fuel. If you're depriving your body of that easy energy it looks for other sources- protein and fat. That's why it's important to make sure you're eating adequate amounts of protein; you don't want your body consuming your lean body mass (muscle) for energy.

This is my (elementary) understanding of how it works; perhaps someone more educated in nutrition can expound on it, but I hope it helps, OP

EvgeniZyntx

When you lower your carbs a "side effect" will be lower calories unless you replace those calories with something else. Any "diet" only works because of a calorie deficit. For weight loss it's not going to matter where those calories come from as long as you are consuming less of them than you are burning.

In the short term carbs can cause you to retain water but over the long term it's really not going to matter much for strictly weight loss, body composition is a whole other thing all together.

Aside from the lowering calorie effect. Carbs are useful in the body as a source for storing energy in muscles, the glycogen in muscles ranges from 250-700 g and has an additional 4-9 g of water per gram of glycogen. That's up to 3 kg of liquid storage in muscle tissue affected by low carb (add another kg in the liver) and any diet that affects this storage system will create an artificial loss. Not very sustainable in the long term, fine for short term losses.

FindingMyPerfection

There are many people who have some sort of carb intolerance with out knowing it. It may be possible you are one of them.

togmo

I'm also trying to cut down on carbs and only eat them from fruits and veggies. This is my understanding of why carbs make it harder to lose weight: Carbs break down into sugar, elevated sugar in your blood stream makes you secrete insulin, and insulin stores the sugar in your muscle/fat cells for later use.

Something that you want if you are working out. Otherwise you crash. Carbs are an intense exerciser's best friend!

togmo

When you lower your carbs a "side effect" will be lower calories unless you replace those calories with something else. Any "diet" only works because of a calorie deficit. For weight loss it's not going to matter where those calories come from as long as you are consuming less of them than you are burning.

In the short term carbs can cause you to retain water but over the long term it's really not going to matter much for strictly weight loss, body composition is a whole other thing all together.

Aside from the lowering calorie effect. Carbs are useful in the body as a source for storing energy in muscles, the glycogen in muscles ranges from 250-700 g and has an additional 4-9 g of water per gram of glycogen. That's up to 3 kg of liquid storage in muscle tissue affected by low carb (add another kg in the liver) and any diet that affects this storage system will create an artificial loss. Not very sustainable in the long term, fine for short term losses.

^ This - artificial loss!

biggsterjackster

For me, protein helps me to feel so much longer full. For example, if I eat eggs for breakfast, I am not hungry until lunch. A bowl of cereal (lot of carbs) with the same amount of calories makes me want to eat after 2 hours again.

ndj1979

it is in your head.

if you eat in a calorie deficit then you will lose weight.

If low carb makes it easies for you to create said deficit then by all means do it. I just think that in the long run it is not going to work as eventually you are going to get cravings and give in to them, just my opinion.

A more sensible approach is to set your macros to 40P/30F/30 carbs, eat in a 500 per day deficit, and work out/move more…

I eat about 30% carbs and maintain 11% body fat….and have had no problems losing, gaining, etc.

ronrstaats

Aside from the lowering calorie effect. Carbs are useful in the body as a source for storing energy in muscles, the glycogen in muscles ranges from 250-700 g and has an additional 4-9 g of water per gram of glycogen. That's up to 3 kg of liquid storage in muscle tissue affected by low carb (add another kg in the liver) and any diet that affects this storage system will create an artificial loss. Not very sustainable in the long term, fine for short term losses.

How long is short term? Need to know after 2.5 years of doing low carb how many years I have left.

EvgeniZyntx

When you're eating less carbs, do you make up for the caloric difference with other foods? I ask because if you're simply eliminating a large amount of calories via carbohydrates without replacing those calories elsewhere (protein, namely) then all you're doing is creating a larger calorie deficit, which of course means you'll lose weight more quickly.

If, however, you're eating (roughly) the same number of calories with or without carbs, I'd say it might have something to do with the body having less "easy" energy. Carbohydrates break down most quickly and are the first things used for fuel. If you're depriving your body of that easy energy it looks for other sources- protein and fat. That's why it's important to make sure you're eating adequate amounts of protein; you don't want your body consuming your lean body mass (muscle) for energy.

This is my (elementary) understanding of how it works; perhaps someone more educated in nutrition can expound on it, but I hope it helps, OP

While carbs are used early in an effort - remember all three systems are in use at all times. Don't worry too much about what breaks down more quickly, in a normal diet, it is still a multi-hour process. Even pure glucose when ingested peaks at about 3/4 hr in blood levels.

ndj1979

That's what works for me also. Plenty of people will say calories in/calories out. I'm not going to argue with them about it, I know what works for me. Everyone is different.

no, everyone is not different. The laws of thermodynamics and math apply to all of us. There are no special snowflakes that can eat more than they burn and lose weight.

Again, if low carb helps you create a calorie deficit, great…but don't go around saying that it is not calories in vs calories out bc that is wrong and confuses people.

parkscs

It's not really "artificial" -it's just not fat loss. Not to mention, it only really occurs during the first week or so of a LCHF diet anyways, and has little do with the long-term. As for exercise, it really depends on what you do. If you're a sprinter, you will want some carbs, while endurance activities tend to be fine on a LCHF diet. I know some guys that will preload their lifting with some carbs (TKD), while others feel fine lifting on a standard LCHF diet.

As for why it works for some people, the main advantage of such diets is that you're simply satiated most of the time, even when eating at an aggressive caloric deficit. There are posts daily on this forum about people going to bed hungry, not getting enough to eat, etc. because they set too aggressive of a caloric deficit, and usually they're given the right answer of upping their calories a bit and taking things more slowly. On the other hand, those same people could likely get by just fine on their aggressive caloric deficit if eating a LCHF diet, as it's much less likely they'd go hungry on a daily basis. Of course, the downside is you have to give up certain foods, and some people prefer the freedom to eat whatever they want over being satiated or following a more aggressive caloric deficit. It's certainly not for everyone.

EvgeniZyntx

Aside from the lowering calorie effect. Carbs are useful in the body as a source for storing energy in muscles, the glycogen in muscles ranges from 250-700 g and has an additional 4-9 g of water per gram of glycogen. That's up to 3 kg of liquid storage in muscle tissue affected by low carb (add another kg in the liver) and any diet that affects this storage system will create an artificial loss. Not very sustainable in the long term, fine for short term losses.

How long is short term? Need to know after 2.5 years of doing low carb how many years I have left.

Well, you've obviously been successful with it but for most people low carb diets fail because they find them too restrictive. It is also particularly difficult diet if you are active in any endurance activity.

So let me backpedal for a second and add "for many people".

So, let me ask you, since you low carbed in the past and then failed and are now back for long term low carb, what are you doing to assure your long term success for the future? No bread, cookies or cake for the rest of your life? or is "low carb" for you relative?

Not an attack in any way, I'm truly curious. I'm running a very low carb experiment right now and am curious about those that make it as a life time thing. Won't be my choice, but I'm interested in your perspective.

LaurieJ68

It's all very confusing! Everyone seems to have a different fund of knowledge when it comes to weight loss. It definitely is a matter of calories in/calories out but it also seems to be different for everyone in regards to how they make that happen. What it really comes down to is what can you live with? Yes, losing weight for your health and to look and feel good and doing it in the quickest way possible for you is great. But what about the long term? Can you give up those carbs forever? Because it's all about changing your lifestyle forever. You may go on a low carb diet and exercise daily for 2 hours but is that something you can sustain forever? I know that when I cut down on carbs and calories I lose weight. But I also know that I would miss those carbs if I told myself I could never eat them again. And what happens when I lose all the weight I want to lose and then go back to eating my carbs that I have missed? I gain weight. So, for me, it's about finding the lifestyle that I can live with forever. It's a long time, I know. I am still looking for the one I can live with. I'm working on it. Good luck to you! :happy:

EvgeniZyntx

It's not really "artificial" -it's just not fat loss. Not to mention, it only really occurs during the first week or so of a LCHF diet anyways, and has little do with the long-term. As for exercise, it really depends on what you do. If you're a sprinter, you will want some carbs, while endurance activities tend to be fine on a LCHF diet. I know some guys that will preload their lifting with some carbs (TKD), while others feel fine lifting on a standard LCHF diet.

As for why it works for some people, the main advantage of such diets is that you're simply satiated most of the time, even when eating at an aggressive caloric deficit. There are posts daily on this forum about people going to bed hungry, not getting enough to eat, etc. because they set too aggressive of a caloric deficit, and usually they're given the right answer of upping their calories a bit and taking things more slowly. On the other hand, those same people could likely get by just fine on their aggressive caloric deficit if eating a LCHF diet, as it's much less likely they'd go hungry on a daily basis. Of course, the downside is you have to give up certain foods, and some people prefer the freedom to eat whatever they want over being satiated or following a more aggressive caloric deficit. It's certainly not for everyone.

Or a LCHP diet.

jeffpettis

That's what works for me also. Plenty of people will say calories in/calories out. I'm not going to argue with them about it, I know what works for me. Everyone is different.

no, everyone is not different. The laws of thermodynamics and math apply to all of us. There are no special snowflakes that can eat more than they burn and lose weight.

Again, if low carb helps you create a calorie deficit, great…but don't go around saying that it is not calories in vs calories out bc that is wrong and confuses people.

You beat me to it.... ^^^

_Zardoz_

It doesn't

ronrstaats

I love how people keep talking about the laws of Thermodynamics and use only the first law to apply it to humans.. The first law says that work, heat and changes in chemical composition will be constant. People are not like that. You have to use the second law which is a dissipation law which takes into account chemical reactions, changes in Gibbs free energy, ΔG, whose sign predicts the direction of reaction, and whose magnitude indicates the maximum amount of work realizable from the reaction.

Basically different things you eat are burned differently do to chemical composition and the way your body processes it. It will never be as simple as calories in/calories out no mater how many times people chant about it on here.

That being said.. you still need a calorie deficit to lose weight..

erickirb

A caloric deficit is easier with low carb as protein is more filling, and you have less choice of foods. On top of that the first week or tow you will lose more as your glycogen stores get depleted, and glycogen retains water, so you lose more "weight" on low carb the first couple of weeks, but that extra weight loss is just water weight.

But if you eat "normal" amount of carbs for a day or two your glycogen will build up and you will retain water showing a huge gain in the scale, even though it is only water.

erickirb

I love how people keep talking about the laws of Thermodynamics and use only the first law to apply it to humans.. The first law says that work, heat and changes in chemical composition will be constant. People are not like that. You have to use the second law which is a dissipation law which takes into account chemical reactions, changes in Gibbs free energy, ΔG, whose sign predicts the direction of reaction, and whose magnitude indicates the maximum amount of work realizable from the reaction.

Basically different things you eat are burned differently do to chemical composition and the way your body processes it. It will never be as simple as calories in/calories out no mater how many times people chant about it on here.

That being said.. you still need a calorie deficit to lose weight..

It is all about cals in or out if you need a deficit to lose. the issue is the calculation for calories in and out, with out being much more variable and next to impossible to get it exact.

jeffpettis

Something else to consider, if you are doing much exercising along with your diet, carbs are the body's main fuel source. Of course the basic priciple of fat loss is to be in an energy deficit so the body uses stored fat for fuel, but your body still need carbs for energy. If you are not worried about retaining muscle while you diet then this is probably not an issue but if you want to hang onto your LBM then you don't want to go low carb. While on a low carb diet your body will use whatever it has to for it's energy source. Since there are less carbs to use for energy it doesn't care if you want to hang onto your muscle, the body is not picky, it's going to use muscle along with fat for energy.

parkscs

It's not really "artificial" -it's just not fat loss. Not to mention, it only really occurs during the first week or so of a LCHF diet anyways, and has little do with the long-term. As for exercise, it really depends on what you do. If you're a sprinter, you will want some carbs, while endurance activities tend to be fine on a LCHF diet. I know some guys that will preload their lifting with some carbs (TKD), while others feel fine lifting on a standard LCHF diet.

As for why it works for some people, the main advantage of such diets is that you're simply satiated most of the time, even when eating at an aggressive caloric deficit. There are posts daily on this forum about people going to bed hungry, not getting enough to eat, etc. because they set too aggressive of a caloric deficit, and usually they're given the right answer of upping their calories a bit and taking things more slowly. On the other hand, those same people could likely get by just fine on their aggressive caloric deficit if eating a LCHF diet, as it's much less likely they'd go hungry on a daily basis. Of course, the downside is you have to give up certain foods, and some people prefer the freedom to eat whatever they want over being satiated or following a more aggressive caloric deficit. It's certainly not for everyone.

Or a LCHP diet.

Sure, but I would almost consider that more restrictive than a LCHF diet where you are still hitting your protein macro daily. At some point, you may get tired of chicken breast and shrimp as your main source of energy. :laugh:

MireyGal76

It's all very confusing! Everyone seems to have a different fund of knowledge when it comes to weight loss. It definitely is a matter of calories in/calories out but it also seems to be different for everyone in regards to how they make that happen. What it really comes down to is what can you live with? Yes, losing weight for your health and to look and feel good and doing it in the quickest way possible for you is great. But what about the long term? Can you give up those carbs forever? Because it's all about changing your lifestyle forever. You may go on a low carb diet and exercise daily for 2 hours but is that something you can sustain forever? I know that when I cut down on carbs and calories I lose weight. But I also know that I would miss those carbs if I told myself I could never eat them again. And what happens when I lose all the weight I want to lose and then go back to eating my carbs that I have missed? I gain weight. So, for me, it's about finding the lifestyle that I can live with forever. It's a long time, I know. I am still looking for the one I can live with. I'm working on it. Good luck to you! :happy:

I really like this one :flowerforyou:

EvgeniZyntx

It's not really "artificial" -it's just not fat loss. Not to mention, it only really occurs during the first week or so of a LCHF diet anyways, and has little do with the long-term. As for exercise, it really depends on what you do. If you're a sprinter, you will want some carbs, while endurance activities tend to be fine on a LCHF diet. I know some guys that will preload their lifting with some carbs (TKD), while others feel fine lifting on a standard LCHF diet.

As for why it works for some people, the main advantage of such diets is that you're simply satiated most of the time, even when eating at an aggressive caloric deficit. There are posts daily on this forum about people going to bed hungry, not getting enough to eat, etc. because they set too aggressive of a caloric deficit, and usually they're given the right answer of upping their calories a bit and taking things more slowly. On the other hand, those same people could likely get by just fine on their aggressive caloric deficit if eating a LCHF diet, as it's much less likely they'd go hungry on a daily basis. Of course, the downside is you have to give up certain foods, and some people prefer the freedom to eat whatever they want over being satiated or following a more aggressive caloric deficit. It's certainly not for everyone.

Or a LCHP diet.

Sure, but I would almost consider that more restrictive than a LCHF diet where you are still hitting your protein macro daily. At some point, you may get tired of chicken breast and shrimp as your main source of energy. :laugh:

Most certainly. (Are you reading my mind?)

somefitsomefat

As a general rule, eating low carb can make it easier to eat lower calorie just by accident. For instance, if you eat mostly lean meats, fish, and large portions of veggies (these things are good ideas in general anyways) you'll probably find yourself at a deficit. If you start bacon wrapping hotdogs, eating cheese by the block, and woofing down a 24oz steak for dinner every night then maybe not. What's sad is some of the benefits of eating lower carb do get lost in bogus science and twisted by people who want it to be a "magic" diet.