Why does low carb work better then just eating whatever?

_EndGame_

I would find it difficult to go low carb.

It's really just a case of eating a deficit of calories as opposed to a surplus of calories. I don't think it makes much difference about how those calories are obtained.

DebbieLyn63

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.

Nowhere in my statement did I say it's "not calories in/calories out". I said I know what works for me.

And yes, everyone is different. In my case I had gestational diabetes and family history of type II diabetes at 40+ - which is exactly where I am. Reduced carb DOES work for me for those reasons.

so you eat more than you burn and still lose weight?

Even diabetics lose weight in a calorie deficit…so I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that eating more than you burn works for you and you lose weight?

And yes if you have a medical condition that makes you sensitive to carbs then cutting carbs would assist..

I guess I forgot my disclaimer which is that "this assumes no underlying medical condition"

So you are saying that someone who is sensitive to carbs, defies the law of thermodynamics, and they are indeed a 'special snowflake'?
In that case, if they ate at a 500 calorie deficit on both diets, that they could possibly lose more weight on a low carb diet than on a high carb diet? Eating the same number of calories, just different macros?

parkscs

From the above-cited article (http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long ):

The reduced fat mass comprised 50–60% of the weight lost in both groups. There were no changes in bone mineral content over the course of the study.

Although subjects on the carbohydrate-restricted diet were not specifically asked to limit caloric intake as were those on the low fat diet, both groups reported a decrease in caloric intake of approximately 450 calories compared with baseline. Although caloric intakes in the two groups were similar, the proportions of carbohydrate, protein, and fat consumed differed dramatically.

Our analysis of body composition showed that the weight lost in the very low carbohydrate diet group consisted of a similar percentage of fat mass as in the low fat diet group. Thus, we think it is very unlikely that differences in weight between the two groups at 3 and 6 months are a result of disproportionate changes in body water in the very low carbohydrate dieters.

Interesting. Basically, they found that both the low calorie and the low carb groups lost the same percentage of LBM when dieting, but they found the low carb dieters lost significantly more weight than the low calorie group. Such a study is actually pretty interesting, because it seems to suggest that a LCHF diet actually results in faster fat loss at a similar caloric intake to a low fat diet, without increasing the percentage of LBM lost in total weight loss. It also seems to go against other studies I've seen suggesting there isn't a metabolic advantage to a LCHF diet.

ronitabur

It's about "feeding" your body. If you cut out or the refined carbs - sugars, white flour, white rice and possibly even white potatoes, just about the only thing left is food that has nutritional value. If you eat whole carbohydrates, like 100% whole wheat, whole grain brown rice, any whole grain, whole wheat or protein based pastas, etc., along with a diet with veggies and lean protein, you are getting fiber and more nutrition. Subsequently, you will not be as hungry, you will be equipped to handle a reduced calorie diet without your body feeling like it is starving and you wil be healthier and will have more energy.

Don't worry about too many carbohydrates because you need it for energy so you can build muscle. Just worry about the types of carbohydrates you consume.

EvgeniZyntx

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..

contradict yourself much? You say it is not as simple as calories in vs calories out, and then you go on to say that you need a calorie deficit to lose weight. If it is about calorie deficit, then it is as simple as calories in vs calories out. Eat too much = gain; eat less = lose.

I have never found a person that defies the law of thermodynamics…have you?

As an aside, there is no need to "defy the laws of thermodynamics" to demonstrate that CICO is incorrect. In general, it is sufficient and likely the best long term strategy but it isn't an absolute. To even see how broken CICO can be I suggest reading

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/

Where greater weight loss is shown at higher calorie intake. The argument that certain diets have a "metabolic advantage" is likely a reasonable modifying factor even when CICO dominates. Energy conservation does not hold in a system where metabolic paths can be selected.

It's a good estimator and all of MFP is pretty much based on that but it's an inexact estimator. Thermodynamics is not physiology, and vice versa.

But in general, following CICO makes sense.

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.

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.

Nowhere in my statement did I say it's "not calories in/calories out". I said I know what works for me.

And yes, everyone is different. In my case I had gestational diabetes and family history of type II diabetes at 40+ - which is exactly where I am. Reduced carb DOES work for me for those reasons.

so you eat more than you burn and still lose weight?

Even diabetics lose weight in a calorie deficit…so I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that eating more than you burn works for you and you lose weight?

And yes if you have a medical condition that makes you sensitive to carbs then cutting carbs would assist..

I guess I forgot my disclaimer which is that "this assumes no underlying medical condition"

No. I didn't say that either. I feel like my words are being twisted.

The question wasn't about eating more or less than burning. The question was about losing weight on a lower or reduced carb diet. Obviously you have to eat at a deficit to lose weight.

As someone else said, if I eat cereal for breakfast I can't make it to lunch and by 2 I can barely stay awake. If I eat eggs totally different story.

I guess my point is you can't apply a "one size fits all" to 100 % of people. My dietitian recommended higher fat and protein, someone with heart disease or high cholesterol wouldn't be able to eat the amount of fat and protein I do.

kgeyser

The diet that works best is one that creates a calorie deficit and that you can sustain. Calories in, calories out. Get those calories in however works best for you, and don't worry about what anyone else is doing.

WendyTerry420

For me, low carb would never work. Who wants a lifestyle change that takes you from happy to miserable?

LiftAllThePizzas

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.

You're missing the point. Weight loss is not about the number on the scale, but more specifically about losing excess fat, because that is what causes the health problems associated with obesity. The initial glycogen/water loss may look good on the scale but does nothing else for you.

And that initial bump is not sustainable: you aren't still losing glycogen/water 2.5 years later, nor would it be beneficial even if you could.

rondaj05

It's about "feeding" your body. If you cut out or the refined carbs - sugars, white flour, white rice and possibly even white potatoes, just about the only thing left is food that has nutritional value. If you eat whole carbohydrates, like 100% whole wheat, whole grain brown rice, any whole grain, whole wheat or protein based pastas, etc., along with a diet with veggies and lean protein, you are getting fiber and more nutrition. Subsequently, you will not be as hungry, you will be equipped to handle a reduced calorie diet without your body feeling like it is starving and you wil be healthier and will have more energy.

Don't worry about too many carbohydrates because you need it for energy so you can build muscle. Just worry about the types of carbohydrates you consume.

Exactly! Thank you!!! :flowerforyou:

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.

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.

Nowhere in my statement did I say it's "not calories in/calories out". I said I know what works for me.

And yes, everyone is different. In my case I had gestational diabetes and family history of type II diabetes at 40+ - which is exactly where I am. Reduced carb DOES work for me for those reasons.

so you eat more than you burn and still lose weight?

Even diabetics lose weight in a calorie deficit…so I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that eating more than you burn works for you and you lose weight?

And yes if you have a medical condition that makes you sensitive to carbs then cutting carbs would assist..

I guess I forgot my disclaimer which is that "this assumes no underlying medical condition"

So you are saying that someone who is sensitive to carbs, defies the law of thermodynamics, and they are indeed a 'special snowflake'?
In that case, if they ate at a 500 calorie deficit on both diets, that they could possibly lose more weight on a low carb diet than on a high carb diet? Eating the same number of calories, just different macros?

I really don't know why it's necessary to make snide remarks or resort to name calling as if we're all in 8th grade.

If I eat carbs in veggies, fruit, beans, peanut butter... I DON'T retain fluid.

If I eat bread, potatoes, noodes/pasta, rice etc... I retain fluid. When I'm retaining fluid I'm generally GAINING weight not losing.

It's not about carbs PERIOD for me... it's about what TYPE of carbs. So yea, I guess I am a special snowflake. :laugh:

neanderthin

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.

Nowhere in my statement did I say it's "not calories in/calories out". I said I know what works for me.

And yes, everyone is different. In my case I had gestational diabetes and family history of type II diabetes at 40+ - which is exactly where I am. Reduced carb DOES work for me for those reasons.

so you eat more than you burn and still lose weight?

Even diabetics lose weight in a calorie deficit…so I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that eating more than you burn works for you and you lose weight?

And yes if you have a medical condition that makes you sensitive to carbs then cutting carbs would assist..

I guess I forgot my disclaimer which is that "this assumes no underlying medical condition"

So you are saying that someone who is sensitive to carbs, defies the law of thermodynamics, and they are indeed a 'special snowflake'?
In that case, if they ate at a 500 calorie deficit on both diets, that they could possibly lose more weight on a low carb diet than on a high carb diet? Eating the same number of calories, just different macros?

I really don't know why it's necessary to make snide remarks or resort to name calling as if we're all in 8th grade.

If I eat carbs in veggies, fruit, beans, peanut butter... I DON'T retain fluid.

If I eat bread, potatoes, noodes/pasta, rice etc... I retain fluid. When I'm retaining fluid I'm generally GAINING weight not losing.

It's not about carbs PERIOD for me... it's about what TYPE of carbs. So yea, I guess I am a special snowflake. :laugh:

In that context anything you eat or drink causes weight gain regardless of fluid retention.

BlueBombers

I couldn't tell you, I've never cut out carbs.

JoRocka

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.

indeed.

It seems to work well because it cuts out a major food group- which means you are more likely to eat at a calorie deficit.

I liked it- it was so much harder for me to over eat when I was off the heavy carbs.

But I'm bulking- so now it's game on bishes!!

DebbieLyn63

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.

Nowhere in my statement did I say it's "not calories in/calories out". I said I know what works for me.

And yes, everyone is different. In my case I had gestational diabetes and family history of type II diabetes at 40+ - which is exactly where I am. Reduced carb DOES work for me for those reasons.

so you eat more than you burn and still lose weight?

Even diabetics lose weight in a calorie deficit…so I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that eating more than you burn works for you and you lose weight?

And yes if you have a medical condition that makes you sensitive to carbs then cutting carbs would assist..

I guess I forgot my disclaimer which is that "this assumes no underlying medical condition"

So you are saying that someone who is sensitive to carbs, defies the law of thermodynamics, and they are indeed a 'special snowflake'?
In that case, if they ate at a 500 calorie deficit on both diets, that they could possibly lose more weight on a low carb diet than on a high carb diet? Eating the same number of calories, just different macros?

I really don't know why it's necessary to make snide remarks or resort to name calling as if we're all in 8th grade.

If I eat carbs in veggies, fruit, beans, peanut butter... I DON'T retain fluid.

If I eat bread, potatoes, noodes/pasta, rice etc... I retain fluid. When I'm retaining fluid I'm generally GAINING weight not losing.

It's not about carbs PERIOD for me... it's about what TYPE of carbs. So yea, I guess I am a special snowflake. :laugh:

My question was directed at ndj1979, who posted the last comment that I quoted. HE was the one saying that we are NOT different and there are no special snowflakes. We all lose weight the same way. Our bodies all work the same way.
THEN he came back and said this didn't apply to those who are 'carb sensitive'.

So I was asking him to clarify that he WAS then saying that those who are 'carb sensitive' must then be 'special snowflakes' whose bodies DO work differently than those who are not carb sensitive.

I am one of those 'special snowflakes' whose body does indeed process carbs differently than some other people.
I can eat X amount of cals of low carb/highfat/moderate protein and lose weight. If I increase my carbs, replacing some fat and protein, and still stay within the same number of calories, my weight loss will stall, for weeks or even months on end.

This does not mean that EVERYONE needs to eat lower carb to lose weight. For those who can eat 300+ grams a day and still lose weight. I am happy for you. Your body works like it is supposed to work. There is no need for you to cut down on carbs.

BUT for a large number of us, we simply need to eat lower carbs to be successful. For whatever reason, it works better for US.

cwolfman13

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....

most of the initial low carb loss is water and glycogen. Once those losses have occurred, one loses at roughly the same rate as any other diet.

For many people, cutting carbs is also an easy way of inadvertently eliminating calories. Grains, starches, pastas, rices, and other carbohydrates can often be calorie dense...provided that your're not replacing those calories with other calories, you will pretty effortlessly create a calorie deficit.

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.

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.

Nowhere in my statement did I say it's "not calories in/calories out". I said I know what works for me.

And yes, everyone is different. In my case I had gestational diabetes and family history of type II diabetes at 40+ - which is exactly where I am. Reduced carb DOES work for me for those reasons.

so you eat more than you burn and still lose weight?

Even diabetics lose weight in a calorie deficit…so I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that eating more than you burn works for you and you lose weight?

And yes if you have a medical condition that makes you sensitive to carbs then cutting carbs would assist..

I guess I forgot my disclaimer which is that "this assumes no underlying medical condition"

So you are saying that someone who is sensitive to carbs, defies the law of thermodynamics, and they are indeed a 'special snowflake'?
In that case, if they ate at a 500 calorie deficit on both diets, that they could possibly lose more weight on a low carb diet than on a high carb diet? Eating the same number of calories, just different macros?

I really don't know why it's necessary to make snide remarks or resort to name calling as if we're all in 8th grade.

If I eat carbs in veggies, fruit, beans, peanut butter... I DON'T retain fluid.

If I eat bread, potatoes, noodes/pasta, rice etc... I retain fluid. When I'm retaining fluid I'm generally GAINING weight not losing.

It's not about carbs PERIOD for me... it's about what TYPE of carbs. So yea, I guess I am a special snowflake. :laugh:

My question was directed at ndj1979, who posted the last comment that I quoted. HE was the one saying that we are NOT different and there are no special snowflakes. We all lose weight the same way. Our bodies all work the same way.
THEN he came back and said this didn't apply to those who are 'carb sensitive'.

So I was asking him to clarify that he WAS then saying that those who are 'carb sensitive' must then be 'special snowflakes' whose bodies DO work differently than those who are not carb sensitive.

I am one of those 'special snowflakes' whose body does indeed process carbs differently than some other people.
I can eat X amount of cals of low carb/highfat/moderate protein and lose weight. If I increase my carbs, replacing some fat and protein, and still stay within the same number of calories, my weight loss will stall, for weeks or even months on end.

This does not mean that EVERYONE needs to eat lower carb to lose weight. For those who can eat 300+ grams a day and still lose weight. I am happy for you. Your body works like it is supposed to work. There is no need for you to cut down on carbs.

BUT for a large number of us, we simply need to eat lower carbs to be successful. For whatever reason, it works better for US.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood! :flowerforyou: :blushing:

SezxyStef

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.

Not when it comes to weight loss.

If you [bweigh[/b] your portions and have a calorie deficet regardless of what types of food you eat you will lose weight.

Chances are if you are not using a digital food scale and stop with starchy carbs and sweets and replace with veggies etc you will be creating a larger calorie deficet then before as those foods even when not weighed will have tonnes less calories then the aformentioned starches and sweets

For example

2 servings of veggies (85g serving) is 80calories
1 serving of bread (2 slices) is 160-200 calories...big difference.

ninerbuff

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. Guaranteed that a person that low carb for an extended period of time, then ingests a good amount of them one day, will find themselves 5lbs or more heavier the next day due to the influx of glycogen and water storage. Also bet their energy levels will be much more magnified. Because that's what carbs do.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

parkscs

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. Guaranteed that a person that low carb for an extended period of time, then ingests a good amount of them one day, will find themselves 5lbs or more heavier the next day due to the influx of glycogen and water storage. Also bet their energy levels will be much more magnified. Because that's what carbs do.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Surely you aren't suggesting that the only effect of a LCHF is the reduction of water weight as glycogen stores are depleted during the first week or so. That's simply one side-effect. As for energy levels, you may be surprised.