A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

kgeyser

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

No, he said it was more restrictive:

And finally, the low-carb diet, since it was actually low-carb, obviously was much more restrictive than the low-fat diet, which wasn’t actually low-fat.

JoyeII

It doesn't fly in the face of anything here. It's just another way to get to a calorie deficit. Ketosis is a natural appetite suppressant. You eat less when you're in ketosis (i.e. you consume fewer calories).

msf74

Flies in the face of everything we believe here.

Eh? Not it doesn't.

There have been a number of studies which show in free living conditions that low carb can be very effective (especially with hunger control) leading to people generally eating less (and therefore achieving a calorie deficit in the process) and therefore weight loss.

Would it lead to more fat loss than the situation where calories were held constant? Well, no.

If low carb suits your preferences have at it. If it doesn't try something else.

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

No, he said it was more restrictive:

And finally, the low-carb diet, since it was actually low-carb, obviously was much more restrictive than the low-fat diet, which wasn’t actually low-fat.

Sorry, my bad, I was reading some other part of the article wrong.

hookilau

All I'm gonna say is what I know has worked for me. Without watching portion sizes at all or worrying at all about calories, I dropped 8 pounds by cutting out gluten and refined sugar.

Foods with gluten and refined sugar generally have more calories, thus my guess is you created a calorie deficit by cutting them out of your diet.

Actually fats have more more calories. Sugars and grains just don't keep most people satisfied so they tend to eat more of them.

Carbs 4 calories per gram
Proteins 4 calories per gram
Fats 9 calories per gram

When was the last time you heard of somebody binging on chicken breast and brocolli ?
What keeps you full longer a cinimon bun or a chicken breast ?

* not trying to pick a fight with you! just having a friendly conversation.

:sick: I tried.
Really I did.
Never gonna try that again.

Woefully under my calorie allotment for the day and the previous day, I tried to eat 2 boneless chicken thighs, didn't even get to the side dish of sauteed green beans :noway: and left behind a bit of chicken too.

I was about ready to barf at the thought of another bite, blech. Just totally turned off, not full, just appetite literally OFF like a light switch :laugh:

It's hard to overeat on a low carb diet, but it *can* be done if one tries hard enough. Calories absolutely matter, no one's saying they don't. However, they don't have to be the *focus* end-all be-all if one is eating a diet decreased in carbs than the usual SAD.

LifeWithPie

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

LOL. Maybe because it's only 150 calories and a cold Coke on a hot summer day is delightful. I eat candy bars sometimes too. Gasp!

hookilau

kcdambuster

If you eat certain types of food that are filling (satisfy your hunger), and those foods are low carb, you probably won't need to count calories.

meridianova

It sure does. A calorie is a calorie regardless if it comes from carrots or cookies, protein, fat or carbs. Weight loss is simple math, calories in versus calories out.

except it's not... simple math, that is.

we all know that a calorie is a unit of heat, specifically the amount of heat it takes to increase the temperature of 1ml of water 1 degree centigrade. when referring to food, what we call "a calorie" is actually a kilocalorie, or the amount of heat it would take to raise 1,000ml of water 1 degree centigrade. and we all know that the way to determine how many calories is in any given amount of food is to, very literally, burn it.

if this were nothing more than simple math, then humans would be able to consume and function just fine eating any material that burned. but we can't. we can only function on three specific macronutrients, and even then each one of us varies in how our bodies handle those macronutrients. the vitamins and minerals we need to function properly can only be processed in the presence of two of those three macronutrients... fat or protein.

we also have to take into account that not everyone's metabolism works the same way. while our bodies have the capability of using carbs for quick bursts of energy (great for sprinting during hunting or running away from an attacker), it's fats that provide the long-lasting endurance energy, where we can eat relatively little in volume but stay satiated for long periods of time. if that creates a deficit, so be it, but there are a lot of people who have found that by eating primarly fats and protein, they were able to lose weight because they unlocked their own fat stores by eating more fats. we already know that insulin is released in order to process glucose for energy... what insulin ALSO does is prevents the body from accessing stored fat for energy until the blood glucose is gone. if you keep carbohydrates to a minimum, or only eat carbohydrates that are indigestible (fiber), then your body is capable of accessing those fat stores and burning them instead of wasting time burning sugars first, fat later. so it's not a process of math, but a process of chemistry.

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.

TX_Rhon

In to read at lunch.......which includes carbs!!

lemurcat12

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.

I've seen it a lot more, but I am aware that people tend to notice stuff that annoys them while brushing off other stuff, so I'm not surprised that people vary as to their perceptions of how common certain things are.

For me, though, it seems like every time we have a "why am I not losing" thread someone pops in and insists it's because you have to cut carbs or too many carbs or too much sugar (all questions that could be appropriately raised in a "why can't I stick to my calories" thread). And it's especially egregious IMO with all the "am I eating too much sugar from fruit" threads, where there always seems to be a few people who insist that you can't lose unless you cut fruit, because it will make you starving.

Anyway, I agree that it does get drowned out by other, better advice. But it's one thing I react to.

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.

And, see, I don't notice this as much, although I think some form of it sometimes exists. I see some claim that low carb (or paleo or whatever) magically allows for weight loss which is impossible with more standard macro ratios even with a significant deficit, whereas others (including the majority of the followers of those diets) explain that it's simply because they eat fewer calories on those diets.

But who knows, perhaps I just notice those threads more often and gloss over the more zealous low carber posts.

I suspect you do to some degree, whereas I do the opposite. It's human nature.

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.

Yes, you are correct. Looking at it again it's not really what I'd call a low fat diet.

jkal1979

I only read the article because I wanted to see how low the test subjects dropped their carbs but no specific amount was mentioned. I have read in other articles that dropping carbs too low can lead to health issues including hair loss. How low is too low when it comes to lowering carb intake?

Sabine_Stroehm

It doesn't fly in the face of anything here. It's just another way to get to a calorie deficit. Ketosis is a natural appetite suppressant. You eat less when you're in ketosis (i.e. you consume fewer calories).

Wouldn't eating low fat also be just another way to get to a calorie deficit.

LiminalAscendance

It sure does. A calorie is a calorie regardless if it comes from carrots or cookies, protein, fat or carbs. Weight loss is simple math, calories in versus calories out.

except it's not... simple math, that is.

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 suspect that your body's "efficiency" is about equal to your inability to accurately measure your intake.

lemurcat12

If some of the members of this site find you they will burn you at the stake.

Such ridiculous drama!

I think, absent a health issue, it's bunk because there is no rational scientific explanation ever provided as to how someone is able to obtain more than 100% of the calories available from carbs and therefore gain weight on some absurdly low number of calories while not gaining on 2000 calories of other foods or whatever. Also bunk is all the stuff about how too much sugar from fruit leads to increased fat storage even in a deficit. And also the raw foodies' favorites about how you can eat at a serious surplus so long as it's raw and unprocessed and not gain. But if someone wants to say these things, I'm content to just disagree.

parkscs

I only read the article because I wanted to see how low the test subjects dropped their carbs but no specific amount was mentioned. I have read in other articles that dropping carbs too low can lead to health issues including hair loss. How low is too low when it comes to lowering carb intake?

I believe they set a limit of 40g of carbs per day. How low is "too low" is too vague to really answer. 40g is going to be at ketogenic diet levels of low carb for most people.

lemurcat12

It doesn't fly in the face of anything here. It's just another way to get to a calorie deficit. Ketosis is a natural appetite suppressant. You eat less when you're in ketosis (i.e. you consume fewer calories).

Wouldn't eating low fat also be just another way to get to a calorie deficit.

Turns out they weren't really doing low fat.

(But as I said before, I don't think it would work the same.)

lemurcat12

I only read the article because I wanted to see how low the test subjects dropped their carbs but no specific amount was mentioned.

They did no more than 40 grams.

Sabine_Stroehm

It sure does. A calorie is a calorie regardless if it comes from carrots or cookies, protein, fat or carbs. Weight loss is simple math, calories in versus calories out.

except it's not... simple math, that is.

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 suspect that your body's "efficiency" is about equal to your inability to accurately measure your intake.

You really enjoy the drive by insults.