Is a Low-Carb Diet for You? Most Likely Not.

IronPlayground

Considering going low-carb because you heard it's "the way" to lose weight? Do a little research to make sure it's for you. This is a great piece on carbs and how the body reacts to different carb levels. Important thing to remember is that carbs are the variable in everyone's diet. They are usually determined by one's goals and activity level. Only a certain percentage of people can function normally on extremely low-carb diets. Chances are, most of us, fall in the middle and need carbs to perform at our best. It's a long read, but it's well worth the time.

And for you folks that are already low-carb and love it, please read the whole thing before slamming the article.

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets

MelRC117

From one of the sources in the blog since, you know, blogs aren't really a great source.

"Subjects receiving the no-carbohydrate hypocaloric diets for two weeks demonstrated a similar 47% decline in serum T3 but there was no significant change in rT3 with time. In contrast, the same subjects receiving isocaloric diets containing at least 50 g of carbohydrate showed no significant changes in either T3 or rT3 concentration."

Do you realize that 50g of carbs for people is low carb? Sure Induction is around 20-25g of carbs for a couple weeks, then you increase your carbs slowly. By the time you reach the maintenance phase of Atkins, people can eat over 75 NET grams of carbs per week.

May I also point out there is a difference between NO and LOW carb. Even on keto you eat some carbs.

At the end of the day, if people do their research and decide that the low carb diet is what works for them and their lifestyle then great. If not, then lesson learned. I realize low carb diets aren't a magic wand and is THE only way to diet and I don't demonize sugar or call food "good" or "bad". It also, admittedly, took me years to really find out why eating low carb "works"..never realized until MFP that I was even eating in a calorie deficit while eating low carb. But to say, don't even bother doing having a low carb diet is ridiculous. To each their own.

trybefan

Thanks for sharing! Lots of info to read up on.

TheGymGypsy

I don't know anything about the science behind low carb diets...

But I do know that I would be a cranky beast from hell if I ever had to be on one. I eat 300g+ of carbs every day and still enjoy fitness, vitality, and weight loss.

Iknowsaur

Oh hello, pasta.
Get in my belly.

KANGOOJUMPS

high carb for me
i need the fuel for my 2 and 3 hour workouts

QuilterInVA

Can you tell me why there are requirements by the body to have fat and protein but we can live well with absolutely no carbs? I suggest you get informed. As for needing carbs for exercise, that has been proven to be false. The body converts fat and protein to glucose just fine. Think of eskimos - protein and fat and no carbs and they are healthy. We eat a lot of carbs and this nation is getting fatter and fatter.

IronPlayground

Can you tell me why there are requirements by the body to have fat and protein but we can live well with absolutely no carbs? I suggest you get informed. As for needing carbs for exercise, that has been proven to be false. The body converts fat and protein to glucose just fine. Think of eskimos - protein and fat and no carbs and they are healthy. We eat a lot of carbs and this nation is getting fatter and fatter.

Again, small percentage of people will be fine with no or very low carbs. That includes workouts. But, for the majority of people, carbs are needed for hormonal balance and energy levels.

This isn't an attempt to tell people not to go low-carb. If you read the entire piece, you will see they even stated that a person's diet should be there own and not someone else's. It is worth looking at health markers if you do decide to go low-carb to make sure that weight is not the only thing being lost.

IronPlayground

At the end of the day, if people do their research and decide that the low carb diet is what works for them and their lifestyle then great. If not, then lesson learned. I realize low carb diets aren't a magic wand and is THE only way to diet and I don't demonize sugar or call food "good" or "bad". It also, admittedly, took me years to really find out why eating low carb "works"..never realized until MFP that I was even eating in a calorie deficit while eating low carb. But to say, don't even bother doing having a low carb diet is ridiculous. To each their own.

That's why I put in the title "most likely". There are always going to be outliers. Just like there are folks that can eat extremely high carb diets and burn fat. But, for the majority of people. It's not going to be the most efficient way to eat. And, if someone is thinking of going very low-carb, it is best to research the pros and cons to find out if it fits and not go by their next door neighbors results.

parkscs

My biggest issue with that article (other than the obvious bias, as they fail to highlight a single positive attribute of low carb diets, of which there are many) is that they begin by telling the reader your training performance will suffer, you will fail to build or even you'll lose muscle, and all these other lovely overstated "facts"... and then they slip in a bit about some athletes who perform as well or even better while eating a low carb diet at the end of the article (some noticeably better), while most athletes felt they could perform as well but for sprinting capacity (and most of us aren't sprinters). I have no doubt some people feel worse on a low carb diet, but it's also clear to me that not everyone's athletic performance suffers on a low carb diet. Also, color me skeptical on people building a lot of muscle eating carbs at a caloric deficit - carbs or not, it's pretty difficult if not impossible for most people to pack on substantial muscle while cutting. Suggesting that you can't add muscle while cutting on a low carb diet, while ignoring the same is true when you cut with carbs, is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

Any time you ignore the positive aspects and focus only on overstated negative aspects, it's easy to make a case against something.

IronPlayground

carbs or not, it's pretty difficult if not impossible for most people to pack on substantial muscle while cutting. Suggesting that you can't add muscle while cutting on a low carb diet, while ignoring the same is true when you cut with carbs, is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

I understand your point. Not a whole lot of muscle being gained in a deficit, carbs or not. I don't see where this was strictly geared for calorie deficits in the section where they talked about muscle loss.

When carbs are not present, the body will use other stores for energy, but it's not so linear that we can say for certainty that if I don't have any carbs to use then all the energy will come from fat. There is going to be muscle breakdown in order to supply the body with energy.

lilRicki

In for the arguments

EvanKeel

Just from a tone perspective, there's a clear bias against low-carb diets. This is a little at odds with the take away I get from it, which is: Pay attention to how your body feels and adjust your carb intake to match your energy needs as appropriate because it's probably not going to make a difference for fat loss.

This makes me believe that the tonal bias really has more to do with countering the rhetorical fervor that some people have in favor of low-carb diets *cough*Taubes*cough*. Personally, I'd prefer to leave the rhetoric out, or talk about it directly in those terms, and just go with what I thought the take-away was.

SoreTodayStrongTomorrow222

What exactly is considered "low carb" ? There seems to be a huge variation in all the different research in that study. I eat about 100-125 g carbs a day and I consider that "low carb" for me. I'm not groggy or mind F'd and I have plenty of energy - I just make sure I get my carbs from nutrient rich foods

EvanKeel

What exactly is considered "low carb" ? There seems to be a huge variation in all the different research in that study. I eat about 100-125 g carbs a day and I consider that "low carb" for me. I'm not groggy or mind F'd and I have plenty of energy - I just make sure I get my carbs from nutrient rich foods

I'd call that low(er) carb. Generally I think people who go low carb fall into a 50-100g/day range. With very low carb around >50g/day. I'm sure other people have opinions on that, but that's just what I've seen from discussions on the topic.

IronPlayground

What exactly is considered "low carb" ? There seems to be a huge variation in all the different research in that study. I eat about 100-125 g carbs a day and I consider that "low carb" for me. I'm not groggy or mind F'd and I have plenty of energy - I just make sure I get my carbs from nutrient rich foods

100-125g of carbs/day is going to be 400-500 calories from carbs. Depending on your total daily calorie intake and your activity level, it might be low carb for you and it might not be.

IronPlayground

Just from a tone perspective, there's a clear bias against low-carb diets. This is a little at odds with the take away I get from it, which is: Pay attention to how your body feels and adjust your carb intake to match your energy needs as appropriate because it's probably not going to make a difference for fat loss.

This makes me believe that the tonal bias really has more to do with countering the rhetorical fervor that some people have in favor of low-carb diets *cough*Taubes*cough*. Personally, I'd prefer to leave the rhetoric out, or talk about it directly in those terms, and just go with what I thought the take-away was.

I think the tone of the article is to understand that there could be many more factors at risk when reducing a particular macronutrient to extreme levels. They did mention the low-fat craze, as well. Just happens to be that low-carbs is all over the place now. In doing so, I don't think it would have been wise for them to not mention the outliers. I thought it was also important that they mentioned that everyone is going to be different in how they approach eating and that finding the best fit for you is the most important part. At the same time, it's important to research what it is you're doing and not go at it blindly because a co worker has success.

parkscs

I think the tone of the article is to understand that there could be many more factors at risk when reducing a particular macronutrient to extreme levels. They did mention the low-fat craze, as well. Just happens to be that low-carbs is all over the place now. In doing so, I don't think it would have been wise for them to not mention the outliers. I thought it was also important that they mentioned that everyone is going to be different in how they approach eating and that finding the best fit for you is the most important part. At the same time, it's important to research what it is you're doing and not go at it blindly because a co worker has success.

If educating the reader about the pros and cons of a low carb diet was truly their intention, they probably would have highlighted some of the research showing benefits of low carb diets. I'm with you on it being important to do your own research and finding the best fit for you as an individual though.

eric_sg61

Can you tell me why there are requirements by the body to have fat and protein but we can live well with absolutely no carbs? I suggest you get informed. As for needing carbs for exercise, that has been proven to be false. The body converts fat and protein to glucose just fine. Think of eskimos - protein and fat and no carbs and they are healthy. We eat a lot of carbs and this nation is getting fatter and fatter.

You really want your body to break down muscle tissue to convert to glucose for energy? Not me

SalishSea

bump.

parkscs

Can you tell me why there are requirements by the body to have fat and protein but we can live well with absolutely no carbs? I suggest you get informed. As for needing carbs for exercise, that has been proven to be false. The body converts fat and protein to glucose just fine. Think of eskimos - protein and fat and no carbs and they are healthy. We eat a lot of carbs and this nation is getting fatter and fatter.

You really want your body to break down muscle tissue to convert to glucose for energy? Not me

Nor do most people following low carb diets. Given that's not what happens to people on a standard low carb diet though, I'm not really sure what your point is.

mschicagocubs

Props to anyone that can lose weight on a low carb diet.

I for one cannot. I love carbs.

rocknlotsofrolls

But I do know that I would be a cranky beast from hell if I ever had to be on one.[/quote]

LOL! That describes me exactly.

lugiagirl249

*shrug*

My fiance does LCHF and has lost 75lbs so far. I was interested so the place to go was r/keto. The subreddit is very helpful and has great information on Keto and the users are willing to help you out too if you're interested.

My two cents

-lg

DirtyCurvesAhead

Can you tell me why there are requirements by the body to have fat and protein but we can live well with absolutely no carbs? I suggest you get informed. As for needing carbs for exercise, that has been proven to be false. The body converts fat and protein to glucose just fine. Think of eskimos - protein and fat and no carbs and they are healthy. We eat a lot of carbs and this nation is getting fatter and fatter.

You really want your body to break down muscle tissue to convert to glucose for energy? Not me

The body breaks down protein and fat no matter what deficit macro breakdown you choose. The way to reduce this is resistance training and sufficient dietary protein. Carbs are quick energy and some have a hard time functioning without them but that has nothing to do with what your body breaks down when cutting.

Personally I eat 50-150g of carbs a day unless it is a cheat day. Shrug*

Edit because I forgot to quote.

IronPlayground

Can you tell me why there are requirements by the body to have fat and protein but we can live well with absolutely no carbs? I suggest you get informed. As for needing carbs for exercise, that has been proven to be false. The body converts fat and protein to glucose just fine. Think of eskimos - protein and fat and no carbs and they are healthy. We eat a lot of carbs and this nation is getting fatter and fatter.

You really want your body to break down muscle tissue to convert to glucose for energy? Not me

Nor do most people following low carb diets. Given that's not what happens to people on a standard low carb diet though, I'm not really sure what your point is.

Please supply links to studies that show this not happening.

parkscs

Can you tell me why there are requirements by the body to have fat and protein but we can live well with absolutely no carbs? I suggest you get informed. As for needing carbs for exercise, that has been proven to be false. The body converts fat and protein to glucose just fine. Think of eskimos - protein and fat and no carbs and they are healthy. We eat a lot of carbs and this nation is getting fatter and fatter.

You really want your body to break down muscle tissue to convert to glucose for energy? Not me

Nor do most people following low carb diets. Given that's not what happens to people on a standard low carb diet though, I'm not really sure what your point is.

Please supply links to studies that show this not happening.

Oh please. If you have no studies suggesting it DOES happen, don't start demanding citations that it doesn't happen. This is akin to me conclusively stating that raspberry ketones are the secret to weight loss and when you suggest otherwise, I demand studies proving raspberry ketones do not lead to weight loss. If we're going to play that game, please supply links to studies that show people getting adequate protein and calories, in a state of ketosis where ketones take the place of glucose for many brain cells (and thus your body's glucose requirements are lower), and yet their body decides to catabolize their muscle tissue into glucose anyways (for S&G I suppose?).

If you've looked into this subject at all, you'd realize that the primary factors that contribute to lean body mass retention are a) protein intake, b) resistance training and c) not going "too aggressive" with your caloric deficit, where "too aggressive" is probably a lot more of a deficit than most people think (one study suggests it's around 31 kcal/lb of fat per day). What's not on that list? A high carb intake. For that matter, if what you're suggesting is true (which it's not), then a protein-sparing modified fast wouldn't be sparing whatsoever because it lacks a high carb intake - and yet these VLCD's are used by doctors for rapid weight loss in obese patients where the body largely does not break down lean tissue for energy.

Perhaps if we were discussing a no carb diet you might see this taking place (even then it's suspect if your protein intake is adequate), but with regard to a standard low carb diet with adequate protein, you're just repeating an old myth. All that said, if you want to spend the next many hours reading studies, there's a review of studies with plenty of citations here http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/9#B5.

DamePiglet

Think of eskimos - protein and fat and no carbs and they are healthy.

What?!?! Are you kidding??

ETA: Please furnish evidence that Eskimos are healthier than anyone else. Because... No.

wyattj99

Yep...no clue on the science of carbs, I eat carbs every day...lost weight. It's all about moderation, not starving!

Graelwyn75

If my carbs drop too low, regardless of quantities of fat and protein, I experience terrible mood swings and general feelings of fatigue and weakness, and my workouts, specifically cardio, suffer for it. Not for me, but if others can function well on it, fair enough.

neanderthin

I'm considered low carb and I eat 200g's a day. Low carb isn't some static number, it's a consumption that would be considered lower than the RDA for study purposes which would include many variances of consumption.