Why does low carb work better then just eating whatever?

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.

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.

LOL! I went on to say this among several other things:

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.

In my case, I'm at high risk for Type II Diabetes. For ME, limiting my carbs as listed above and eating a higher fat/protein diet DOES work better.

Does this apply to everyone? Should everyone eat like *I* eat? Absolutely not. My whole argument earlier is "one size fits all" does not apply to 100% of people. Plenty of people here seem to endorse you can eat WHATEVER YOU WANT as long as you eat at a deficit. I say, no, that doesn't work for me.

danimalkeys

It's because low carb diets offer many benefits such as poor gym performance and constipation.

You really have no clue do you. Constipation? It's not like we're eating nothing but meat and cheese and getting blocked up. Also, do some research, there are a lot of athletes, especially endurance athletes, who follow a low carb diet.

Why do people think that when you eat low carb you completely eliminate entire food groups from your diet? You don't! You MODERATE them. Just like someone on a low fat diet moderates their fat, those on a low carb diet moderate their carbs. Yet you never hear the pundits here telling the low fat crew that their diet isn't sustainable!

I can eat bread, pasta, rice, potatoes if I want- as long as it fits within my carb goal. Me? I elect to not eat those, I'd rather get my carbs from a giant salad and big portions of cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts with my dinner, vs having a tiny portion of pasta or a cup of rice or a couple slices of bread and be done for the day with carbs.

I don't know why it works for me, but it does. I eat 2300 cals a day. Before low carb I ate 250g of carbs in that 2300, and the scale and tape measure didn't move. 6 months of low carb with the same calorie count and 50g of carbs, and I'm down 20+lbs. Slow and steady loss. No lack of energy at all, I actually feel more energetic. I lost 5lbs the 1st week due to the water weight, and then it's been a half a pound a week pretty steady since then.

Is it a sustainable lifestyle? for me it is, because I like what I'm eating, and I can continue to eat this way for a long time. It's all about what works for you as an individual.

WendyTerry420

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.

WTF? You seem to be misinformed in thinking that carbohydrates are not a nutrient. Sorry, but that's incorrect. ALL food has *some* nutritional value, even foods with very little vitamins/minerals still have *some* nutritional value. Sugar, for example, is a pure carbohydrate. The value it brings is raw energy. I eat all the foods you listed to be "cut out" and have been quite successful, *AND* happy with my diet so that I will not relapse back into old habits.

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.

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?

No, I am saying that if you are sensitive to carbs due to a medical condition then cutting them out makes sense. However, at the end of the day it is still calories in vs calories out. Unless you are claiming that a Diabetic can eat over maintenance and still lose weight?

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.

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:

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.

No, you have just restricted carbs to the point where you are in a calorie deficit.

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:

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.

No, you have just restricted carbs to the point where you are in a calorie deficit.

Semantics.

marsellient

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.

Even without going "low carb" the first statement is accurate for me. In order to hit my calorie and macro targets (40% carbs) I have to pay a lot of attention to foods like bread and pasta and choose more vegetables and legumes.

Phaedra2014

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..

So glad you said that. Finally someone who moves past the oft parrotted first law.

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?

No, I am saying that if you are sensitive to carbs due to a medical condition then cutting them out makes sense. However, at the end of the day it is still calories in vs calories out. Unless you are claiming that a Diabetic can eat over maintenance and still lose weight?

No, I am claiming that a Diabetic can eat the SAME number of calories, in different macro percentages, and lose different amounts of weight. This has been shown to be the case in numerous controlled studies.

vampirequeen1959

I find restricting carbs helps with IBS which is why I chose a LCHF diet. However others tell me that it's the fat that makes them bloat and they're better when they eat less fat and more carbs. So I guess at the end of the day you should eat in a way that suits your body's needs and have a calorie deficit in order to lose weight.

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.

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?

No, I am saying that if you are sensitive to carbs due to a medical condition then cutting them out makes sense. However, at the end of the day it is still calories in vs calories out. Unless you are claiming that a Diabetic can eat over maintenance and still lose weight?

No, I am claiming that a Diabetic can eat the SAME number of calories, in different macro percentages, and lose different amounts of weight. This has been shown to be the case in numerous controlled studies.

good, then we agree. It all boils down to calorie deficit.

ndj1979

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..

So glad you said that. Finally someone who moves past the oft parrotted first law.

so find me the person that defies it then?

erickirb

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?

No, I am saying that if you are sensitive to carbs due to a medical condition then cutting them out makes sense. However, at the end of the day it is still calories in vs calories out. Unless you are claiming that a Diabetic can eat over maintenance and still lose weight?

No, I am claiming that a Diabetic can eat the SAME number of calories, in different macro percentages, and lose different amounts of weight. This has been shown to be the case in numerous controlled studies.

And the difference would be 99% water, there may be a slight dif as you burn more energy digesting protein and fat than carbs, but that means you are burning more cals when taking in the same.

Tto take account of that you would need to eat a few more calories to give yourself the same deficit (cals in - cals out). As an example say you eat 50/25/25 (c/f/p) at 1500 cals to give you a 500 cal deficit, well if you then eat 20/50/30 (c/f/p) you would have to eat a little more than 1500 to have a 500 cal deficit as you burn more digesting that combo so may have to eat 1575 to have a 500 cal deficit. If these numbers were accurate you would lose the same amount of weight (assuming no extra water retained or lost) eating 1575 low carb high fat, or 1500 of "balanced" diet, as the deficit is the same. The cals in may be slightly dif, but so are the cals out, so apples to apples the deficit needs to be the same, not necessarily the cals in.

Riemersma4

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.

^ this. Perfectly true....

yarwell

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479 found that response to different macro percentages depended on insulin sensitivity.

"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake." (my italics)

So the right diet could be 50-100% more effective in terms of weight loss.

SashleyA

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.

This is me. I don't intentionally eat low carb, but often find myself eating higher protein to keep fuller longer. I also find that a carb based meal often has more calories for the same amount- for example, I can eat a sandwich with 200 calories of bread, plus the fillings, or a piece of meat plus some veggies and get more for the same calories. I think that's why low carb works so well for people.

kayveebee7

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.

Yep! Learned that in Endocrinology in grad school!

ambermichellepaton

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYlIcXynwE

I've lost 50 pounds. I used to eat Atkins, but now my lifestyle is Paleolithic. Don't listen to anyone tell you that all calories are created equal. Lower your carbs, increase your healthy fats & veggies. You will lose weight. Wheat bread spikes your blood sugar just like a piece of candy will. Add me on myfitnesspal if you have any questions!

erickirb

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479 found that response to different macro percentages depended on insulin sensitivity.

"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake." (my italics)

So the right diet could be 50-100% more effective in terms of weight loss.

what is the difference in fat loss? could the difference here not be mostly water, due to glycogen store depletion, with the remained due to higher thermal effect of digesting the lower carb diet, in other words, water and less cals burned?

parkscs

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15897479 found that response to different macro percentages depended on insulin sensitivity.

"Insulin-sensitive women on the HC/LF diet lost 13.5 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW, whereas those on the LC/HF diet lost 6.8 +/- 1.2% (p < 0.001; p < 0.002 between the groups). In contrast, among the insulin-resistant women, those on the LC/HF diet lost 13.4 +/- 1.3% (p < 0.001) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 +/- 1.4% (p < 0.001) lost by those on the HC/LF diet (p < 0.04 between two groups). These differences could not be explained by changes in resting metabolic rate, activity, or intake." (my italics)

So the right diet could be 50-100% more effective in terms of weight loss.

what is the difference in fat loss? could the difference here not be mostly water, due to glycogen store depletion, with the remained due to higher thermal effect of digesting the lower carb diet, in other words, water and less cals burned?

Why would the high carb group experience greater losses due to glycogen store depletion in the first instance?