Does low carb make you lose faster?

kgeyser

I don't know all the scientific stuff.

But I do know that when I did low carb the weight fell off me consistently.

Now it's barely moving.

And since I know someone's going to ask - I weigh everything with a food scale.

Hold on a second. You asked the original question itt and then give that respose? What was the point of the thread?

Trying to figure out WHY.

It could simply be a cycle I'm in. I may have hit a pleateu with low carb as well.

Why are you getting offended? Because I lost more while eating less carbs?

No. I'm not offended, that's a ridiculous statement. I don't care how you lost the weight. One thing I will never be is jealous of anyone on MFP.

Just seems like you like to ask questions just to ask questions. Luckily for me is that as of last week I don't see your posts on my news feed.

So your upset because I ask questions ... I see. Didn't mean to hurt your delicate sensibilities.

No, it frustrating to carefully answer your questions, and then have you start a whole new thread that makes it obvious that you didn't even read the answers.

Go ahead and show where I asked this question and it was answered... I'll wait.

I started a thread once, where 15 pages into it it may have devolved into this discussion -- but I did not ask it.

So just because YOU haven't specifically asked a question you cannot benefit from a discussion that involves the answer? More likely that you are can't be bothered to seek out answers for your questions or follow discussions that have occurred in your own posts. That is called intellectual laziness.

Well, at least you are finally being honest about it.

I was never not honest. I said I never asked that question. Which YOU said I did. Who was being dishonest again?

Secondly, do you read all 25 pages of a thread? Maybe you do. I don't. It wasn't until someone in this very thread said that it was talked about in another thread I started that I went back and had to dig into the thread to find it. That thread ended up being split into 2 threads because it got so long. If YOU read that entire thing, kudos to you. I didn't.

Um, what? Let's replay how that exchange actually went, shall we?

I believe this question was already thoroughly answered in your previous post: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1347263-do-you-believe-in-strictly-calories-in-calories-out

I don't recall ever asking this question in that thread. That thread did get very, very long and someone else may have brought it up.

I never said you asked this specific question, I said the question was thoroughly answered in your post.

You did ask about insulin response as one of your questions, there was a very long conversation about the body's response to carbs and the role of carbs in weight loss. A lot of people took the time to respond to your topic thoroughly and include studies, you might want to take the time to read their responses.

I gotta be honest, all I hear is "Blah, blah, blah".

If you don't like that I asked a question that relates in some way to something I asked in the past, then I really don't care. I find it ridiculous that people take the time to moderate the forum. There are moderators for this reason. Feel free to ignore my threads. Or feel free to take the time out of your day to come in them, and reply with this nonse. Either way, I don't care.

There are plenty of people who have given some awesome answers in this thread that have helped a ton and I thank them greatly.

z
z
z

So after you attacked me for providing a link to the information you sought, you then went back and read the link, and found that the information was exactly where I said it was? The same information you referred to above as nonsense?

Blah, blah, blah indeed.

I'm not sure what youre trying to say here.

I attacked the notion of members acting as moderators.

I never asked that question. But I did find that other people were talking about it. Still not sure what that has to do with anything, but OK.

What does members acting as moderators have to do with what I posted?

hookilau

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MysteriousMerlin

I lose weight easier when I restrict my carbs to about 100-120g a day.

TutuMom41

I lose weight easier when I restrict my carbs to about 100-120g a day.

Carbs have cals per gram, protein has 4 cals per gram fat has 9

Calories in calories out. Listen to your body. Use portion control and stop eating when you are full. The first bite tastes as good as the last

meshashesha2012

not sure if this has been posted or not already, but lyle mcdonald has a pretty good article comparing diets

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-part-1.html

QuietBloom

I was never not honest. I said I never asked that question. Which YOU said I did. Who was being dishonest again?

Secondly, do you read all 25 pages of a thread? Maybe you do. I don't. It wasn't until someone in this very thread said that it was talked about in another thread I started that I went back and had to dig into the thread to find it. That thread ended up being split into 2 threads because it got so long. If YOU read that entire thing, kudos to you. I didn't.

I absolutely read every reply to any threads I start. It's only polite.

jofjltncb6

I was never not honest. I said I never asked that question. Which YOU said I did. Who was being dishonest again?

Secondly, do you read all 25 pages of a thread? Maybe you do. I don't. It wasn't until someone in this very thread said that it was talked about in another thread I started that I went back and had to dig into the thread to find it. That thread ended up being split into 2 threads because it got so long. If YOU read that entire thing, kudos to you. I didn't.

I absolutely read every reply to any threads I start. It's only polite.

^this

...but maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Quicksilver5495

I was just reading your comment and wanted to throw an idea at you about your workouts. Have you considered breaking it up into 3 different workouts? This would give your muscles enough time to repair themselves and I think you would see better gains, plus it breaks up nice with doing each workout twice a week and having one day. Just a thought.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

linbert57

No .. it is stupid. Carbs are needed for energy for your body .. unless you plan on sitting and watching tv all day, have some carbs.

I get my energy from dietary fat - coconut oil, avocado, nuts etc, - I do not need carbs for energy. I work 2 jobs and do not sit on my butt for either of them. I have plenty of energy on this woe. 5% carbs, 25% protein, 70% fat

tennisdude2004

No .. it is stupid. Carbs are needed for energy for your body .. unless you plan on sitting and watching tv all day, have some carbs.

There's only one word above that accurately describes your statement.

Carbs (well glucose) are needed by the body, but dietary carbs are not! They are optimal but not essential.

Limiting your intake is healthy, especially if you are someone that currently over indulges.

linbert57

The body produces sugar on its own by the liver when needed. So no real need for carbs at all

Unknown

This content has been removed.

charlieibeling

The body produces sugar on its own by the liver when needed. So no real need for carbs at all

Not true at all. You seem to be confused on how the body works by saying the body doesn't need carbs at all.

if a person ate 2000 calories from nothing but sugar and took a few omega 3 and amino tabs to stay alive I promise you they would lose weight more slowly than someone eating 2000 from protein and fat

3dogsrunning

The body produces sugar on its own by the liver when needed. So no real need for carbs at all

Not true at all. You seem to be confused on how the body works by saying the body doesn't need carbs at all.

if a person ate 2000 calories from nothing but sugar and took a few omega 3 and amino tabs to stay alive I promise you they would lose weight more slowly than someone eating 2000 from protein and fat

Like twinkies?

27 lbs in 10 weeks is not slow.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

tennisdude2004

The body produces sugar on its own by the liver when needed. So no real need for carbs at all

Not true at all. You seem to be confused on how the body works by saying the body doesn't need carbs at all.

if a person ate 2000 calories from nothing but sugar and took a few omega 3 and amino tabs to stay alive I promise you they would lose weight more slowly than someone eating 2000 from protein and fat

It's probably the opposite. If someone was only getting there calories from sugar and eating in a deficit they would likely lose mainly lean mass. So would lose probably double the weight.

tennisdude2004

The body produces sugar on its own by the liver when needed. So no real need for carbs at all

Not true at all. You seem to be confused on how the body works by saying the body doesn't need carbs at all.

Dietary carbs are not essential for human existence. However they are 'in limited quantities' optimal for best health. And if someone is heavily resistance training or performing a lot of anarobic exercise then a larger quantity is probably best.

yarwell

if a person ate 2000 calories from nothing but sugar and took a few omega 3 and amino tabs to stay alive I promise you they would lose weight more slowly than someone eating 2000 from protein and fat

something like that has been observed in a clinical trial, exchanging 100g of glucose for the equivalent cals of fat practically stopped weight loss at least in the short term. 21 g/day protein, 1700 cals, diet 3 has 56g of glucose, diet 4 has 156g :-

Unknown

This content has been removed.

charlieibeling

The body produces sugar on its own by the liver when needed. So no real need for carbs at all

Not true at all. You seem to be confused on how the body works by saying the body doesn't need carbs at all.

if a person ate 2000 calories from nothing but sugar and took a few omega 3 and amino tabs to stay alive I promise you they would lose weight more slowly than someone eating 2000 from protein and fat

You are using ridiculous extreme example to try and prove a point and you failed at it.

First of, no one here is saying to eat 2000 calories of sugar so don't try that lame argument. I'm not surprised though due to the quality of your bro posts that you lack the skill to have a reasonable debate.

its to show that there is more to weight loss than calories in vs calories out. if it were this simple then 2000 calories of sugar would work just the same. my science is based on years of teaching it, training in it and training countless other people

kgeyser

Oh, have we reached the absurd comparisons portion already? I love this part!

Which will help you lose weight faster, 500 calories of organic grass-fed beef from a local farm cow who you helped deliver, name, and crocheted sweaters for in colder weather, OR 500 calories of gelatinous goo-like substance scraped out of a truck-stop deep fryer that the cooks use for "can we fry it" experiments after the dinner rush?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

charlieibeling

The body produces sugar on its own by the liver when needed. So no real need for carbs at all

Not true at all. You seem to be confused on how the body works by saying the body doesn't need carbs at all.

if a person ate 2000 calories from nothing but sugar and took a few omega 3 and amino tabs to stay alive I promise you they would lose weight more slowly than someone eating 2000 from protein and fat

You are using ridiculous extreme example to try and prove a point and you failed at it.

First of, no one here is saying to eat 2000 calories of sugar so don't try that lame argument. I'm not surprised though due to the quality of your bro posts that you lack the skill to have a reasonable debate.

its to show that there is more to weight loss than calories in vs calories out. if it were this simple then 2000 calories of sugar would work just the same. my science is based on years of teaching it, training in it and training countless other people

Your example actually didn't show what you are trying to prove.

You are trying to discredit CICO by ignoring TEF, micronutrient necessity and the need for protein and fat minimums for overall health. So again, your extreme example is flawed.

not making an arguement for overall health. just simply weight loss. I find it strange that you use Int. fasting but still take this stance. IF is based primarily on controlling insulin in a fasted state

hookilau

Oh, have we reached the absurd comparisons portion already? I love this part!

Which will help you lose weight faster, 500 calories of organic grass-fed beef from a local farm cow who you helped deliver, name, and crocheted sweaters for in colder weather, OR 500 calories of gelatinous goo-like substance scraped out of a truck-stop deep fryer that the cooks use for "can we fry it" experiments after the dinner rush?

eww :laugh:
barf-city!

eric_sg61

I have noticed a trend with people who post about their weight loss stalling is that they are all on low carb diets.

Meerataila

:laugh:


Now that I'm thinking about it, I attribute my 70-ish pound success with low carb to it helping me be consistent. I no longer had days where I ate well followed by days where I covered myself in shame and cookie crumbs.

lindsey1979

The body produces sugar on its own by the liver when needed. So no real need for carbs at all

Not true at all. You seem to be confused on how the body works by saying the body doesn't need carbs at all.

if a person ate 2000 calories from nothing but sugar and took a few omega 3 and amino tabs to stay alive I promise you they would lose weight more slowly than someone eating 2000 from protein and fat

You are using ridiculous extreme example to try and prove a point and you failed at it.

First of, no one here is saying to eat 2000 calories of sugar so don't try that lame argument. I'm not surprised though due to the quality of your bro posts that you lack the skill to have a reasonable debate.

its to show that there is more to weight loss than calories in vs calories out. if it were this simple then 2000 calories of sugar would work just the same. my science is based on years of teaching it, training in it and training countless other people

Your example actually didn't show what you are trying to prove.

You are trying to discredit CICO by ignoring TEF, micronutrient necessity and the need for protein and fat minimums for overall health. So again, your extreme example is flawed.

not making an arguement for overall health. just simply weight loss. I find it strange that you use Int. fasting but still take this stance. IF is based primarily on controlling insulin in a fasted state

Don't bother. This is an old argument that gets done over and over again. Some will say it's all purely CICO and then in the next breath talk about macros and micros. They don't see the inherent contradiction that if micros and macros are important, then it can't be all about CICO only. The way most try to reconcile it is by making this silly differentiation between health and weight loss, and even that doesn't fully reconcile the contradictions.

lindsey1979

I have noticed a trend with people who post about their weight loss stalling is that they are all on low carb diets.

Really? I've noticed the other way -- that there are more people on IIFYM or CICO based diets that have stall issues, but then that's usually blamed on inaccurate logging. I imagine stalling is not exclusive to either, but more the nature of weight loss for many.

Go_Mizzou99

Low carb, low fat, calorie deficit, etc. allows me to have more bourbon.