A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

meridianova

for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.

I'm unclear as to how that is special and not just part of the normal bell curve distribution you would expect from a large population. No one claims that what is written on a box in terms of calories is the exact amount of energy that everyones body extracts from that, however it IS going to be a percent modifier...meaning that if you pick up the box with 300 calories in it verses 150 calories in it that you will get twice the number of calories even if your body only efficiently processes 75% of them. Its all relative so the numbers on the box are still informative.

then you misunderstood what i said. after calculating my BMR/RMR using the standard methods and comparing that to my oTDEE, my BMR is only approximately 75% of the expected calculations. which means in order to create a large enough caloric deficit to result in the "normal", expected rates of loss, i have to drop down below 1,000 calories a day to lose half a pound per week, and below 750 per day to lose 1 pound per week. that's unsustainable and dangerous, and a pretty clear indication that either something is wrong, either medically or genetically.

besides, if you had a machine (of any type) that was only working at 75% efficiency, 75% speed, or 75% capacity, you'd want to get it fixed, wouldn't you? if it was within 90% of the specs, you probably wouldn't complain too much. but imagine if your car only got 75% of its expected gas mileage, or only went 75% of the speed noted on the speedometer... you'd call that out of the ordinary, not "part of the normal bell-curve distribution."

Of course you have to track your intake, of course you have to track your weight loss and then backcalculate to determine your maintenance to establish your deficit for you personally. If you actually read the main forum posts that is exactly what people say to do.

i love how people assume i fell off the turnip truck yesterday and don't know what the frack i'm doing.:explode:

CICO doesn't mean that the number on a food box is the exact energy that your body extracts CICO means A) establish what your maintenance level is on the basis of those values THEN establish a consistant deficit. If you don't do step A then you can't be suprised when step B doesn't work.

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

likitisplit

Let me put it this way. If you had to give advice about weight loss in one single sentence and have it apply to the broadest audience possible would that sentence contain the word "carbs"?

Probably not, but not everything has to fit into a "one sentence summary" in order to be meaningful. To me, this all just boils down to the notion that satiation can play a meaningful role in weight loss, and avoiding many sources of carbohydrates can make for a more satiating diet overall for many people. It's easy to talk weight loss in terms of specific calories and macros and with an accurate food log in hand, but I think people on here all too often forget that it's not "normal" to weigh and log everything you eat. Most people simply do not do this and for the people that aren't tracking everything, avoiding certain sources of carbohydrates in a meal may allow them to still feel satiated while consuming fewer calories (and to be fair, there are some forms of carbohydrates that are very satiating as well). It's far from an exact science but most people do not live their life as a science experiment and it can still be useful for some people.

This is a calorie counting website....

Quite honestly, if I was going to advise somebody about how to lose weight without counting calories, I'd have them focus on eating higher fiber foods along with sufficient protein.

Also good advice, although I'm not sure what this being a calorie counting website has to do with anything. Just because this is a calorie counting website doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people in this world do not count their calories. There are tons of labels/rules of thumb that aren't really applicable to people that track every calorie and every nutrient the consume, but that doesn't mean those labels/rules of thumb aren't at least somewhat useful to the general populace.

We aren't discussing this with the general populace. We are discussing this with the population of a calorie-counting website.

I might be discussing it with those people, but that doesn't mean I'm talking solely about those people. When I discuss a Supreme Court decision with another attorney, I'm not talking only about how that case affects attorneys - I'm talking about the overall effect of the decision. The study in question wasn't specific to a calorie counting website - in fact, they had people specifically not tracking their caloric intake on a daily basis but instead focusing on rules of thumb like 40g carbs max or 30% calories from fat. It's no big surprise that the results of the study aren't very meaningful for people that track every calorie they eat, and as a result it's not particularly interesting to discuss it only in the context of those people. In short, whatever meaningful information there is that can be gleaned from that study is more related to the population at large than the people using this site to journal their food.

"with another attorney" so you are an attorney, or a clerk, or a para-legal?!?

Courthouse janitor. What's your point?

And you were totally right with your point.

However, the OP was low carb being more effective than low fat flies in the face of what we believe in MFP.

So, yes, focusing on carbs might be a great way to help the population outside of MFP lose weight (as a matter of fact, "added sugar" would probably be a better starting point if you wanted to focus on carbs).

In the context of MFP's calorie counting, the study does not support low carb as being more effective than a generic deficit for the general population.

Sora4ever

It does not matter what you eat as how much you eat ... no deficit no loss. Pure and simple.

So, since it doesn't matter what I eat, I should be able to lose wight as long as there's a deficit, even if I'm living off of french fries, soda, and cake? :huh: Yeah, right. Dude, you're not going to lose weight by eating ****ty junk food all day even if you're staying within your calorie goal. Obviously we need the deficit to lose weight, but the quality of food matters too. What we eat matters.

_Terrapin_

Let me put it this way. If you had to give advice about weight loss in one single sentence and have it apply to the broadest audience possible would that sentence contain the word "carbs"?

Probably not, but not everything has to fit into a "one sentence summary" in order to be meaningful. To me, this all just boils down to the notion that satiation can play a meaningful role in weight loss, and avoiding many sources of carbohydrates can make for a more satiating diet overall for many people. It's easy to talk weight loss in terms of specific calories and macros and with an accurate food log in hand, but I think people on here all too often forget that it's not "normal" to weigh and log everything you eat. Most people simply do not do this and for the people that aren't tracking everything, avoiding certain sources of carbohydrates in a meal may allow them to still feel satiated while consuming fewer calories (and to be fair, there are some forms of carbohydrates that are very satiating as well). It's far from an exact science but most people do not live their life as a science experiment and it can still be useful for some people.

This is a calorie counting website....

Quite honestly, if I was going to advise somebody about how to lose weight without counting calories, I'd have them focus on eating higher fiber foods along with sufficient protein.

Also good advice, although I'm not sure what this being a calorie counting website has to do with anything. Just because this is a calorie counting website doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people in this world do not count their calories. There are tons of labels/rules of thumb that aren't really applicable to people that track every calorie and every nutrient the consume, but that doesn't mean those labels/rules of thumb aren't at least somewhat useful to the general populace.

We aren't discussing this with the general populace. We are discussing this with the population of a calorie-counting website.

I might be discussing it with those people, but that doesn't mean I'm talking solely about those people. When I discuss a Supreme Court decision with another attorney, I'm not talking only about how that case affects attorneys - I'm talking about the overall effect of the decision. The study in question wasn't specific to a calorie counting website - in fact, they had people specifically not tracking their caloric intake on a daily basis but instead focusing on rules of thumb like 40g carbs max or 30% calories from fat. It's no big surprise that the results of the study aren't very meaningful for people that track every calorie they eat, and as a result it's not particularly interesting to discuss it only in the context of those people. In short, whatever meaningful information there is that can be gleaned from that study is more related to the population at large than the people using this site to journal their food.

"with another attorney" so you are an attorney, or a clerk, or a para-legal?!?

Courthouse janitor. What's your point?

Point is: We have one attorney on MFP and the guidelines state "one attorney only". So thankfully a janitor is fine. Do you also work on math problems at night and beat up people in Boston?

parkscs

And you were totally right with your point.

However, the OP was low carb being more effective than low fat flies in the face of what we believe in MFP.

So, yes, focusing on carbs might be a great way to help the population outside of MFP lose weight (as a matter of fact, "added sugar" would probably be a better starting point if you wanted to focus on carbs).

In the context of MFP's calorie counting, the study does not support low carb as being more effective than a generic deficit for the general population.

No disagreement there. I wasn't particularly surprised or impressed by the study and never really understood what the OP thought it "flies in the face of."

Point is: We have one attorney on MFP and the guidelines state "one attorney only". So thankfully a janitor is fine. Do you also work on math problems at night and beat up people in Boston?

I do end up working a lot of nights and occasionally dealing with complex math, but I get along with people pretty well when I'm up in Boston. As long as that's the guideline though, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Mr_Knight

So, since it doesn't matter what I eat, I should be able to lose wight as long as there's a deficit, even if I'm living off of french fries, soda, and cake? :huh: Yeah, right. Dude, you're not going to lose weight by eating ****ty junk food all day even if you're staying within your calorie goal.

Yes, you are.

likitisplit

for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.

I'm unclear as to how that is special and not just part of the normal bell curve distribution you would expect from a large population. No one claims that what is written on a box in terms of calories is the exact amount of energy that everyones body extracts from that, however it IS going to be a percent modifier...meaning that if you pick up the box with 300 calories in it verses 150 calories in it that you will get twice the number of calories even if your body only efficiently processes 75% of them. Its all relative so the numbers on the box are still informative.

then you misunderstood what i said. after calculating my BMR/RMR using the standard methods and comparing that to my oTDEE, my BMR is only approximately 75% of the expected calculations. which means in order to create a large enough caloric deficit to result in the "normal", expected rates of loss, i have to drop down below 1,000 calories a day to lose half a pound per week, and below 750 per day to lose 1 pound per week. that's unsustainable and dangerous, and a pretty clear indication that either something is wrong, either medically or genetically.

besides, if you had a machine (of any type) that was only working at 75% efficiency, 75% speed, or 75% capacity, you'd want to get it fixed, wouldn't you? if it was within 90% of the specs, you probably wouldn't complain too much. but imagine if your car only got 75% of its expected gas mileage, or only went 75% of the speed noted on the speedometer... you'd call that out of the ordinary, not "part of the normal bell-curve distribution."

Of course you have to track your intake, of course you have to track your weight loss and then backcalculate to determine your maintenance to establish your deficit for you personally. If you actually read the main forum posts that is exactly what people say to do.

i love how people assume i fell off the turnip truck yesterday and don't know what the frack i'm doing.:explode:

CICO doesn't mean that the number on a food box is the exact energy that your body extracts CICO means A) establish what your maintenance level is on the basis of those values THEN establish a consistant deficit. If you don't do step A then you can't be suprised when step B doesn't work.

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

What I'm hearing is that Calories In - Calories Out would cause you to lose or gain weight.

However, your particular metabolism makes it impossible for you to lose weight while supporting your nutritional needs.

likitisplit

So, since it doesn't matter what I eat, I should be able to lose wight as long as there's a deficit, even if I'm living off of french fries, soda, and cake? :huh: Yeah, right. Dude, you're not going to lose weight by eating ****ty junk food all day even if you're staying within your calorie goal.

Yes, you are.

Yup.

klaff411

#bull**** .... I only believe a bit of what I read on the internet.

It does not matter what you eat as how much you eat ... no deficit no loss. Pure and simple.

100% true. Despite the fact we all maybe coming form different schools of thought (paleo, keto, high carb, moderation, etc) we ALL agree that you MUST maintain a deficit to lose weight.

Mr_Bad_Example

Interesting article in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html

From the article:

“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”

Flies in the face of everything we believe here.

No, really, it doesn't. *pats you on the head* Now, go play with the other kids, mmmkay?

likitisplit

#bull**** .... I only believe a bit of what I read on the internet.

It does not matter what you eat as how much you eat ... no deficit no loss. Pure and simple.

100% true. Despite the fact we all maybe coming form different schools of thought (paleo, keto, high carb, moderation, etc) we ALL agree that you MUST maintain a deficit to lose weight.

Unfortunately, you will find that many people on this website do not believe that.

likitisplit

Let me put it this way. If you had to give advice about weight loss in one single sentence and have it apply to the broadest audience possible would that sentence contain the word "carbs"?

Probably not, but not everything has to fit into a "one sentence summary" in order to be meaningful. To me, this all just boils down to the notion that satiation can play a meaningful role in weight loss, and avoiding many sources of carbohydrates can make for a more satiating diet overall for many people. It's easy to talk weight loss in terms of specific calories and macros and with an accurate food log in hand, but I think people on here all too often forget that it's not "normal" to weigh and log everything you eat. Most people simply do not do this and for the people that aren't tracking everything, avoiding certain sources of carbohydrates in a meal may allow them to still feel satiated while consuming fewer calories (and to be fair, there are some forms of carbohydrates that are very satiating as well). It's far from an exact science but most people do not live their life as a science experiment and it can still be useful for some people.

This is a calorie counting website....

Quite honestly, if I was going to advise somebody about how to lose weight without counting calories, I'd have them focus on eating higher fiber foods along with sufficient protein.

Also good advice, although I'm not sure what this being a calorie counting website has to do with anything. Just because this is a calorie counting website doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people in this world do not count their calories. There are tons of labels/rules of thumb that aren't really applicable to people that track every calorie and every nutrient the consume, but that doesn't mean those labels/rules of thumb aren't at least somewhat useful to the general populace.

We aren't discussing this with the general populace. We are discussing this with the population of a calorie-counting website.

I might be discussing it with those people, but that doesn't mean I'm talking solely about those people. When I discuss a Supreme Court decision with another attorney, I'm not talking only about how that case affects attorneys - I'm talking about the overall effect of the decision. The study in question wasn't specific to a calorie counting website - in fact, they had people specifically not tracking their caloric intake on a daily basis but instead focusing on rules of thumb like 40g carbs max or 30% calories from fat. It's no big surprise that the results of the study aren't very meaningful for people that track every calorie they eat, and as a result it's not particularly interesting to discuss it only in the context of those people. In short, whatever meaningful information there is that can be gleaned from that study is more related to the population at large than the people using this site to journal their food.

"with another attorney" so you are an attorney, or a clerk, or a para-legal?!?

Courthouse janitor. What's your point?

And you were totally right with your point.

However, the OP was low carb being more effective than low fat flies in the face of what we believe in MFP.

So, yes, focusing on carbs might be a great way to help the population outside of MFP lose weight (as a matter of fact, "added sugar" would probably be a better starting point if you wanted to focus on carbs).

In the context of MFP's calorie counting, the study does not support low carb as being more effective than a generic deficit for the general population.

No disagreement there. I wasn't particularly surprised or impressed by the study and never really understood what the OP thought it "flies in the face of."

I'd hate to actually disagree with you because it's likely I'd be wrong.

lindsey1979

I wish I would have avoided this thread!
First of all, I'm pretty new here, but I have seen a lot of "There's no such thing as a special snowflake. You are not counting right, either your calories in or your calories burnt are wrong." Then, someone brings up a case where a body might use nutrients differently, and they get attitude for bringing it up. It reads like this to me, "there's no such thing as a special snowflake." "But what about A, B, Or C? ". "Stop bringing up special snowflakes!"... "There's no such thing as a special snowflake."

What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way? That's what everyone keeps asking for, proof, examples, etc. My Drs. have me on a low carb diet, for oh no, insulin resistance! However, I don't think that it is the only answer. It is just what works for me and my body. I exercise too. In fact changing my diet has helped me with my migraines which were happening frequently. (3-4 times a week). This has allowed me to start running. So, now, I've been able to add more exercise to my routine. And yes I also count calories, but it's more to make sure I'm eating enough. I don't feel anywhere near as hungry as I used to feel.
So, to answer another question, my one sentence advice would be, "Find a way to lose weight that works for your body's needs".

If you feel better with carbs, eat them. If not, don't. I'm not sure at all why low carb diets seem to anger so many people. I got some rude responses on another thread. It's sort of discouraging when the life choices you make are constantly being denigrated. And then you get insulted to top it off.

What it boils down to,to me, is that losing weight is hard work, no matter what. Does it matter if I lose the weight because my body processes sugar and carbs differently so I cut them down? Or if I cut them down to maintain a caloric deficit? Or if I lose the weight by just maintaining a caloric deficit? One person's experience does not negate another person's.

These forums are for entertainment purposes only.

Don't take it personally.

Some of us actually like genuine exchange of ideas. If you're coming here for entertainment, wow, your pickings must be slim in the entertainment arena.

Alexzivanas

What I meant is that people who don't generally have health problems hear about low carb and say it's bull. Here some lady said she has PCOS just like me yet for her the low carb wasn't the best way to go. So, that is my point. What works for one doesn't work for another. Calorie counting totally doesn't work for me. Doesn't mean it's a bad way to go about losing weight. Some people just shut their mouths for a couple of days and lose those extra kilos. Losing weight is not a clear cut situation. Experiment with yourself and find out what works best for You. That's all I'm saying.

klaff411

for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.

I'm unclear as to how that is special and not just part of the normal bell curve distribution you would expect from a large population. No one claims that what is written on a box in terms of calories is the exact amount of energy that everyones body extracts from that, however it IS going to be a percent modifier...meaning that if you pick up the box with 300 calories in it verses 150 calories in it that you will get twice the number of calories even if your body only efficiently processes 75% of them. Its all relative so the numbers on the box are still informative.

then you misunderstood what i said. after calculating my BMR/RMR using the standard methods and comparing that to my oTDEE, my BMR is only approximately 75% of the expected calculations. which means in order to create a large enough caloric deficit to result in the "normal", expected rates of loss, i have to drop down below 1,000 calories a day to lose half a pound per week, and below 750 per day to lose 1 pound per week. that's unsustainable and dangerous, and a pretty clear indication that either something is wrong, either medically or genetically.

besides, if you had a machine (of any type) that was only working at 75% efficiency, 75% speed, or 75% capacity, you'd want to get it fixed, wouldn't you? if it was within 90% of the specs, you probably wouldn't complain too much. but imagine if your car only got 75% of its expected gas mileage, or only went 75% of the speed noted on the speedometer... you'd call that out of the ordinary, not "part of the normal bell-curve distribution."

Of course you have to track your intake, of course you have to track your weight loss and then backcalculate to determine your maintenance to establish your deficit for you personally. If you actually read the main forum posts that is exactly what people say to do.

i love how people assume i fell off the turnip truck yesterday and don't know what the frack i'm doing.:explode:

CICO doesn't mean that the number on a food box is the exact energy that your body extracts CICO means A) establish what your maintenance level is on the basis of those values THEN establish a consistant deficit. If you don't do step A then you can't be suprised when step B doesn't work.

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

What I'm hearing is that Calories In - Calories Out would cause you to lose or gain weight.

However, your particular metabolism makes it impossible for you to lose weight while supporting your nutritional needs.

Metabolic condishuns effect like .03% of the population. Not every ****en obese person has one. Their biggest problem is: overeating. Duh. Calories in> out is 100% effective for pretty much everyone. Its just people don't want to stop eating too much. Whatever the reason and there are valid reasons. But that's a different conversation. Its simple math and physics.

klaff411

#bull**** .... I only believe a bit of what I read on the internet.

It does not matter what you eat as how much you eat ... no deficit no loss. Pure and simple.

100% true. Despite the fact we all maybe coming form different schools of thought (paleo, keto, high carb, moderation, etc) we ALL agree that you MUST maintain a deficit to lose weight.

Unfortunately, you will find that many people on this website do not believe that.

Yeah facts are hard.

likitisplit

for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.

I'm unclear as to how that is special and not just part of the normal bell curve distribution you would expect from a large population. No one claims that what is written on a box in terms of calories is the exact amount of energy that everyones body extracts from that, however it IS going to be a percent modifier...meaning that if you pick up the box with 300 calories in it verses 150 calories in it that you will get twice the number of calories even if your body only efficiently processes 75% of them. Its all relative so the numbers on the box are still informative.

then you misunderstood what i said. after calculating my BMR/RMR using the standard methods and comparing that to my oTDEE, my BMR is only approximately 75% of the expected calculations. which means in order to create a large enough caloric deficit to result in the "normal", expected rates of loss, i have to drop down below 1,000 calories a day to lose half a pound per week, and below 750 per day to lose 1 pound per week. that's unsustainable and dangerous, and a pretty clear indication that either something is wrong, either medically or genetically.

besides, if you had a machine (of any type) that was only working at 75% efficiency, 75% speed, or 75% capacity, you'd want to get it fixed, wouldn't you? if it was within 90% of the specs, you probably wouldn't complain too much. but imagine if your car only got 75% of its expected gas mileage, or only went 75% of the speed noted on the speedometer... you'd call that out of the ordinary, not "part of the normal bell-curve distribution."

Of course you have to track your intake, of course you have to track your weight loss and then backcalculate to determine your maintenance to establish your deficit for you personally. If you actually read the main forum posts that is exactly what people say to do.

i love how people assume i fell off the turnip truck yesterday and don't know what the frack i'm doing.:explode:

CICO doesn't mean that the number on a food box is the exact energy that your body extracts CICO means A) establish what your maintenance level is on the basis of those values THEN establish a consistant deficit. If you don't do step A then you can't be suprised when step B doesn't work.

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

What I'm hearing is that Calories In - Calories Out would cause you to lose or gain weight.

However, your particular metabolism makes it impossible for you to lose weight while supporting your nutritional needs.

Metabolic condishuns effect like .03% of the population. Not every ****en obese person has one. Their biggest problem is: overeating. Duh. Calories in> out is 100% effective for pretty much everyone. Its just people don't want to stop eating too much. Whatever the reason and there are valid reasons. But that's a different conversation. Its simple math and physics.

Lindsey argues that they affect >40% of the population.

parkscs

Let me put it this way. If you had to give advice about weight loss in one single sentence and have it apply to the broadest audience possible would that sentence contain the word "carbs"?

Probably not, but not everything has to fit into a "one sentence summary" in order to be meaningful. To me, this all just boils down to the notion that satiation can play a meaningful role in weight loss, and avoiding many sources of carbohydrates can make for a more satiating diet overall for many people. It's easy to talk weight loss in terms of specific calories and macros and with an accurate food log in hand, but I think people on here all too often forget that it's not "normal" to weigh and log everything you eat. Most people simply do not do this and for the people that aren't tracking everything, avoiding certain sources of carbohydrates in a meal may allow them to still feel satiated while consuming fewer calories (and to be fair, there are some forms of carbohydrates that are very satiating as well). It's far from an exact science but most people do not live their life as a science experiment and it can still be useful for some people.

This is a calorie counting website....

Quite honestly, if I was going to advise somebody about how to lose weight without counting calories, I'd have them focus on eating higher fiber foods along with sufficient protein.

Also good advice, although I'm not sure what this being a calorie counting website has to do with anything. Just because this is a calorie counting website doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people in this world do not count their calories. There are tons of labels/rules of thumb that aren't really applicable to people that track every calorie and every nutrient the consume, but that doesn't mean those labels/rules of thumb aren't at least somewhat useful to the general populace.

We aren't discussing this with the general populace. We are discussing this with the population of a calorie-counting website.

I might be discussing it with those people, but that doesn't mean I'm talking solely about those people. When I discuss a Supreme Court decision with another attorney, I'm not talking only about how that case affects attorneys - I'm talking about the overall effect of the decision. The study in question wasn't specific to a calorie counting website - in fact, they had people specifically not tracking their caloric intake on a daily basis but instead focusing on rules of thumb like 40g carbs max or 30% calories from fat. It's no big surprise that the results of the study aren't very meaningful for people that track every calorie they eat, and as a result it's not particularly interesting to discuss it only in the context of those people. In short, whatever meaningful information there is that can be gleaned from that study is more related to the population at large than the people using this site to journal their food.

"with another attorney" so you are an attorney, or a clerk, or a para-legal?!?

Courthouse janitor. What's your point?

And you were totally right with your point.

However, the OP was low carb being more effective than low fat flies in the face of what we believe in MFP.

So, yes, focusing on carbs might be a great way to help the population outside of MFP lose weight (as a matter of fact, "added sugar" would probably be a better starting point if you wanted to focus on carbs).

In the context of MFP's calorie counting, the study does not support low carb as being more effective than a generic deficit for the general population.

No disagreement there. I wasn't particularly surprised or impressed by the study and never really understood what the OP thought it "flies in the face of."

I'd hate to actually disagree with you because it's likely I'd be wrong.

Eh, probably only about half the time.

LiminalAscendance

I wish I would have avoided this thread!
First of all, I'm pretty new here, but I have seen a lot of "There's no such thing as a special snowflake. You are not counting right, either your calories in or your calories burnt are wrong." Then, someone brings up a case where a body might use nutrients differently, and they get attitude for bringing it up. It reads like this to me, "there's no such thing as a special snowflake." "But what about A, B, Or C? ". "Stop bringing up special snowflakes!"... "There's no such thing as a special snowflake."

What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way? That's what everyone keeps asking for, proof, examples, etc. My Drs. have me on a low carb diet, for oh no, insulin resistance! However, I don't think that it is the only answer. It is just what works for me and my body. I exercise too. In fact changing my diet has helped me with my migraines which were happening frequently. (3-4 times a week). This has allowed me to start running. So, now, I've been able to add more exercise to my routine. And yes I also count calories, but it's more to make sure I'm eating enough. I don't feel anywhere near as hungry as I used to feel.
So, to answer another question, my one sentence advice would be, "Find a way to lose weight that works for your body's needs".

If you feel better with carbs, eat them. If not, don't. I'm not sure at all why low carb diets seem to anger so many people. I got some rude responses on another thread. It's sort of discouraging when the life choices you make are constantly being denigrated. And then you get insulted to top it off.

What it boils down to,to me, is that losing weight is hard work, no matter what. Does it matter if I lose the weight because my body processes sugar and carbs differently so I cut them down? Or if I cut them down to maintain a caloric deficit? Or if I lose the weight by just maintaining a caloric deficit? One person's experience does not negate another person's.

These forums are for entertainment purposes only.

Don't take it personally.

Some of us actually like genuine exchange of ideas. If you're coming here for entertainment, wow, your pickings must be slim in the entertainment arena.

I'm sorry. I must have confused you with the person that was talking about chihuahuas.

My apologies.