A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

itsbasschick

i am a strong believer in calories in, calories out. i'm diabetic, type 2, and when started counting calories may 1 my blood sugar was 300 fasting. even so, i lost weight every single week and my blood sugar is down to less than half of what it was without medication eating among other things125 to 160 grams of carbs per day every day. true, my carbs are even throughout the day, but then so is all my food. i'm happy to include bread, oatmeal, potatoes and beans in my everyday meals as i enjoy them and they fuel my workouts well.

btw, i tried to cut out carbs for a very brief period. the sudden drop in my blood sugar made me so sick and dizzy that i almost went to the hospital. i added carbs back, felt much better and did it all more gradually.

ksy1969

Kind of seems like a no brainer to me. Not that I support a low carb diet, but it only makes sense that if you cut or lower the intake of a macro nutrient you automatically cut calories. So it still comes down to CICO. Stop trying to complicate it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lemurcat12

Flies in the face of everything we believe here.

How's that? It's a comparison of low fat and low carb diets, and low fat is far less popular on MFP (from my unscientific observations, at least) than low carb. In fact, lots of people who aren't low carb tend to find cutting carbs some or at least focusing on higher protein and fat macros than MFP (and the typical recommendations) would recommend to be helpful.

I believe (and don't think this is a minority view around here, but I haven't done a survey) that low carb works for lots of people because it's a pretty easy way to lower calories for many, without counting. If I cut carbs I invariably lower calories--it's what I was doing before I started focusing on counting calories, and at the time (in part because I was trying to cut calories, so wasn't compensating with higher fat foods or larger meat servings) it resulted in me cutting calories more than I wanted (below 1200) pretty painlessly. So the results seem unsurprising to me.

I wouldn't enjoy a low carb diet, especially when working out a lot (which is not to say others wouldn't), but of course they work for many.

lemurcat12

The article states you don't have to count calories.

You don't have to count calories. You have to eat fewer calories than you burn (overall, not merely from exercise). Any way to achieve that is fine.

Oblaidon

I went on the low carb Atkins diet when I weighed 260 in the year 2000. I lost 40 pounds, but froze at about 220. I then joined Weight Watchers and lost to get to my all time low 192. People said I was too skinny so I stopped dieting and just tried to watching what I ate. I went back to weight watchers and MFP, but have had minimal success. I got back up to 230 and have been battling ever since.

Atkins got me to kickstart my dieting. It is boring eating just meats and veggies. Calorie counting is the way to go for me. I don't think I could go back to meats and veggies.

Now I am thinking about combining calorie counting and low carb for a while. I would have to raise my calories per day though. Sigh, not sure what to do.

neanderthin

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.

What I still don't understand is how the article does what the OP states above in bold.

Or is this just another case where the OP states something just to say it without thought. Kind of like her people eating an all donut diet a few days back.

OP, how does the article fly in the face of everything we believe?

That's the author taking license trying to make it more sensational. It doesn't fly in the face of what we know.......we know that protein is more satiating and we've known that for decades.......the studies they're referring to, which are plenty basically show the control group restricted in their calorie consumption and the low carb group are allowed to consume as m any calories as they want...........the results are always the same. When the calories are similar within the groups, there's no difference in weight loss. The interesting part is that even though the lower carb groups were not calorie restricted they lost more weight in many of these studies.......they ate less calories.....why, because protein and fats are more satiating, nothing more.

parkscs

If what you believe is that counting calories is mandatory for weight loss, then I suppose it flies in the face of that, but I don't know any people that really believe that. That certainly doesn't mean counting calories is a bad idea, even when following a low carb diet - but recommended and required are different things. I suspect the "flies in the face of everything we believe" bit was just overdramatizing it on the OP's part.

Kind of seems like a no brainer to me. Not that I support a low carb diet, but it only makes sense that if you cut or lower the intake of a macro nutrient you automatically cut calories. So it still comes down to CICO. Stop trying to complicate it.

Not necessarily. Just because someone keeps carbs under Xg/day doesn't mean that they will automatically cut their calories. You have to remember that the participants were not told to keep their fat and protein macros fixed when they cut carbs, and it's entirely possible to eat a caloric surplus from fats and protein while keeping carb intake very low. So it's not as simple as an automatic caloric deficit, but it does show that satiation can be a powerful factor in creating a caloric deficit.

yarwell

There are no references to the "studies" or peer reviewed articles which, to me, means this content of this article is pretty meaningless.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694 is the study concerned. Well, the abstract ;-)

Sabine_Stroehm

Time magazine reported on it as well.

http://time.com/3222213/low-carb-diet-beats-low-fat/

Sabine_Stroehm

There are no references to the "studies" or peer reviewed articles which, to me, means this content of this article is pretty meaningless.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694 is the study concerned. Well, the abstract ;-)

Thanks for this.

Sabine_Stroehm

Kind of seems like a no brainer to me. Not that I support a low carb diet, but it only makes sense that if you cut or lower the intake of a macro nutrient you automatically cut calories. So it still comes down to CICO. Stop trying to complicate it.

Wouldn't the low fat group have also lowered a macro and therefore calories?

emsainz23

People are missing the point of low carb and how it works. Calories do matter, they always will matter. A lot of people can eat low carb and lose weight on it without counting calories, it naturally puts them in a deficit. Some people, including myself, that doesn’t work for(well it didn’t work in the past, might work now). I would just simply over eat.
It ultimately boils down to insulin control. Anytime you eat, you increase insulin. Reduce insulin you reduce your waist. Reducing calories reduces insulin, exercise reduces insulin, low carb reduces insulin. It boils down to excessive levels of insulin. High carb foods make it easier for people to binge and over eat, rarely hear of people binging on vegetables and lean meats. Insulin sensitive is a huge factor in all this, this is also genetics. Some people can eat high processed carbs all day and be rail thin, others can not. It’s genetics.
I have lost 225lbs, I have done it on high carb, I have done it on low carb. I have ate whatever I wanted and focused on calories and lost weight as well. For me personally, I would have “cheat days.” Sometimes, binges will just get out of hand even after I lost my weight, I always believed “carbs feed carbs” the more carbs you eat, the more you want. I knew my binging issue was a carb issue, I cut them out, and I might over eat sometimes, max 2,500 calories a day when my goal is 1,800. This is a hell lot better than last month, when I would hit over 3,000 calories a day over eating on junk food. I believe if you limit carbs, your weight regulates itself for most people. Also there are many health benefits to low carb(well to keto).
People say “calories in vs calories out” That’s just stating the obvious. You are fat because you ate more calories than you burned. That’s not the solution to the problem. That’s like saying, “It’s cold outside because it’s not hot” dumb reply. There is a reason why people OVER EAT, this goes back to the insulin issue. Which is rarely if ever addressed.

How did I go from obese 220 lbs to not obese 143 lbs without worrying about insulin, while eating plenty of refined sugar, everyday? You know, following calories in vs calories out.

You did it the same way I did, going from 400 to 175, many times eating refined sugar. Your statement, “Why did I lose weight if I didn’t focus on insulin” is the same as saying, “why did my health improve if I wasn’t focusing on health?”
I guess you missed this sentence, “Reducing calories reduces insulin” just because you didn’t “FOCUS” on it, doesn’t mean you didn’t affect it.

CallMeCupcakeDammit

There are no references to the "studies" or peer reviewed articles which, to me, means this content of this article is pretty meaningless.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694 is the study concerned. Well, the abstract ;-)

That's discussed here. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

Sabine_Stroehm

I suppose it's all moot. IFF it was ever proven (PROVEN) that low carb worked better than not low carb for weight loss, but not low carb would get you there eventually (what this study suggests), would the majority of folks do it? Probably not most folks. Because folks are looking for something that fits their lifestyle and is less of a struggle FOR THEM. For some, being told what to eat is easier. For some being told how much to eat is easier.

neanderthin

There are no references to the "studies" or peer reviewed articles which, to me, means this content of this article is pretty meaningless.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694 is the study concerned. Well, the abstract ;-)

That's discussed here. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

Thanks.....like.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

TeaBea

That's cool. I'm fine with low-carb if that works for people. Some people do better with fewer carbs. Personally, though, it's easier for ME to eat what I want and eat within a calorie goal than it is to cut out my favorite foods. (It's basically how I've maintained over the years as I've aged.) It needs to be sustainable and life-long for me, and that means plenty of pasta to keep me sane. I've never had weight problems and I've always eaten plenty of carbs. Do what works for YOU! :flowerforyou:

This!^

kgeyser

There are no references to the "studies" or peer reviewed articles which, to me, means this content of this article is pretty meaningless.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694 is the study concerned. Well, the abstract ;-)

That's discussed here. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140902121017-23027997-diet-research-stuck-in-the-stone-age

Thanks Cupcake, I was trying to point out that same error in the methodology in my earlier post but didn't quite mentally get there. Not enough caffeine in my system. Interesting to be able to see the baseline data for the participants and the discrepancies between the groups, I wasn't able to view that in the abstract.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lemurcat12

Kind of seems like a no brainer to me. Not that I support a low carb diet, but it only makes sense that if you cut or lower the intake of a macro nutrient you automatically cut calories. So it still comes down to CICO. Stop trying to complicate it.

Wouldn't the low fat group have also lowered a macro and therefore calories?

I don't think it's just cutting a macro but what gets cut. IMO, this is not simply low carb vs. non low carb, but low carb vs. low fat. Just as low carb tends to be good for naturally lowering calories, since it cuts out a lot of less satiating foods, my guess is that low fat is counterproductive since it tends to push people toward less satiating ways of eating.

Of course, I haven't read the study yet, only the NYT piece, and am mostly basing this on my own personal experience, so feel free to discount it entirely.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lemurcat12

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.

What I still don't understand is how the article does what the OP states above in bold.

Or is this just another case where the OP states something just to say it without thought. Kind of like her people eating an all donut diet a few days back.

OP, how does the article fly in the face of everything we believe?

There are numerous posts here that pretty much say "eat what you want, as long as you don't go over your calorie limit."

Yeah, and that works. Saying that doesn't work IF you go over your calorie limit is like saying that exceeding the speed limit is not illegal if you are driving under the speed limit.

I've also seen lots of posts (and written them myself) that what you eat might affect how easily you can stay within a particular calorie limit, so if you have trouble doing so look at what and when you are eating and when you are feeling hungry.

The idea that one can't be satiated on reduced calories without doing low carb is, of course, nonsense, at least as a general statement.

And I think we can agree than many (not all) are less hungry, given the same amount of calories consumed, with a higher fat, lower carb, lower sugar regimen.

I agree that more fat and more protein overall tends to be more satiating and that eating carbs/sugar on their own tends to be particularly unsatisfying for many (including me). I don't agree that one needs to cut out things or do low carb to get this effect, but it may be helpful for individuals, which is why you should experiment with what you eat. Telling people in general that they can't lose weight with carbs above some arbitrary number or while eating added sugar or even fruit or all those kinds of things which I see people proclaiming at MFP often is not accurate nor supported by this study.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

DeguelloTex

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.

What I still don't understand is how the article does what the OP states above in bold.

Or is this just another case where the OP states something just to say it without thought. Kind of like her people eating an all donut diet a few days back.

OP, how does the article fly in the face of everything we believe?

There are numerous posts here that pretty much say "eat what you want, as long as you don't go over your calorie limit." Sorry, but that does not work if you are always hungry. And I think we can agree than many (not all) are less hungry, given the same amount of calories consumed, with a higher fat, lower carb, lower sugar regimen.

Why anyone trying to lose weight would drink a can of Coke (150 calories) is beyond me.

If someone is always hungry, why couldn't he just change what he eats. It does work. It seems like you're trying to create an argument where none exists.

I don't know why anyone would drink Coke. I, however, am trying to lose weight and I drink Dr Pepper. I do it because I like the taste.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MelRC117

What I found funny is Dr. Katz saying the low carb diet was less restrictive when everybody always claims that low carb diets are too restrictive. ETA: Nevermind, mixed that up

However I'm still having difficulty finding exactly what the low fat group was restricted to. Was it just sticking to the ratio?

kmbrooks15

I think the reason this would work is that protein tends to be more filling than carbs. As a result, you'd eat less calories. Going lower carb can actually result in less calorie consumption, especially if you're eating lean proteins.

parkscs

I agree that more fat and more protein overall tends to be more satiating and that eating carbs/sugar on their own tends to be particularly unsatisfying for many (including me). I don't agree that one needs to cut out things or do low carb to get this effect, but it may be helpful for individuals, which is why you should experiment with what you eat. Telling people in general that they can't lose weight with carbs above some arbitrary number or while eating added sugar or even fruit or all those kinds of things which I see people proclaiming at MFP often is not accurate nor supported by this study.

But is that really what people get told? I've seen that sort of advice maybe half a dozen times and it almost always gets drowned out by, frankly, better advice from other people. More often than not I don't see people saying that they can't lose weight eating carbs (because of course you can), but rather people saying that they personally have had success restricting carbs when trying to drop weight and more typically they get told they're doing it wrong for a whole host of over-exaggerated and oftentimes fictional reasons. But who knows, perhaps I just notice those threads more often and gloss over the more zealous low carber posts.

In terms of the study's "low fat" diet, I wouldn't read too much into that if only because the diet wasn't "low fat" in any meaningful way (I think it was something like no more than 30% of your calories from fat, without setting a calorie target). I personally wouldn't draw any conclusions from the study other than it reinforces the notion than low carb diets tend to be very satiating, which isn't a new concept and isn't really worthy of big headlines.

ksy1969

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.

What I still don't understand is how the article does what the OP states above in bold.

Or is this just another case where the OP states something just to say it without thought. Kind of like her people eating an all donut diet a few days back.

OP, how does the article fly in the face of everything we believe?

There are numerous posts here that pretty much say "eat what you want, as long as you don't go over your calorie limit." Sorry, but that does not work if you are always hungry. And I think we can agree than many (not all) are less hungry, given the same amount of calories consumed, with a higher fat, lower carb, lower sugar regimen.

Why anyone trying to lose weight would drink a can of Coke (150 calories) is beyond me.

You know what I have found, 9 times out of 10, when I am hungry it is in my head. It is not a physical manifestation of hunger, it is a mental one. I don't think many of us on this site have experienced true hunger. Heck, even when I was on a 48 hour fast, because of a pending medical procedure, I don't think I actually felt hunger.

FYI, Sugar is a carb, so you really need to stop say lower carb, lower sugar regimen. That sounds to me like you are trying to demonize sugar.

Also, so what if someone wants to drink a fully sugared can of Coke. If it fits in their macro's and they stay at a deficit, how does it hurt you? I don't think anyone is suggesting that is what you need to do to lose weight, but others can fit it in just fine and lose weight. Many are able to keep it off too.