A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

Mr_Knight

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.

That's water weight from blowing out your glycogen stores.

Mr_Knight

... 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.

Bull****.

Anybody eating at a deficit is burning stored fat, no matter what their macro ratios.

yarwell

Got a look at the full paper, subjects were obese women of avg 215 lb weight BMI 35 with a few men thrown in to mess up the statistics. About half were black. A few hispanics and an "other" were all in the low fat group.

Self reported calorie intake at baseline was ~2000 cals. Through the 12 months the low carb group typically averaged 160 cals/day less than the low fat, but with an sd of >400 there is no statistically significant difference in calorie intake. Fiber was 15-16 g/day throughout.

At 3, 6 and 12 months the average carb intake of the low fat/low carb groups were 193/97, 202/93 and 198/127 compared to 242 grams at baseline. So about a 50% carb reduction in the LC group and 19% in the LF group. Carbs %cals at 12 months were 54/34.

Protein % calories was typically 19/25 in favour of low carb, not that 34% of calories as carb constitutes low carb. Fats 28 / 43 % cals of which saturated 8 / 13 % of cals.

Weight loss in both groups was mainly in the first 3 months, with some regain at 6 and 12 months in both groups.

Taking the 3 month results, LC lost 12.6 lbs (10.8 - 14.3) and LF lost 5.7 lbs.

Using weight loss * 3500 / 90 days gives an apparent deficit of 490 cals on LC and 222 on LF.

The average reported deficit on LC and LF at 3 months from food reporting was 740 on LC and 616 on LF.

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.

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.

wow... like i haven't heard that one here before. i guess you can be the one to go buy me a new kitchen scale, and stand over me during the day as i measure, weigh, portion, count, and log everything that goes into my mouth.

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.

wow... like i haven't heard that one here before. i guess you can be the one to go buy me a new kitchen scale, and stand over me during the day as i measure, weigh, portion, count, and log everything that goes into my mouth.

Why do I care whether you lose weight or not?

If I had a vested interest in it, yes, I would show you how it's done. It's not really that difficult, which only leads me to the conclusion that it's just another excuse to tell someone when they "can't" lose weight.

Edited to quote "can't," since losing weight is attainable by anyone with sense.

lindsey1979

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.

Well, according to the study, the low carbers did lose more fat than the low-fat folks.

The low carbers lost 2.6% of their fat mass whereas the low fat folks only lost 0.4% of their fat mass. So, the low carbers lost more weight overall and more fat.

Mr_Knight

Calorie intake was self-reported. Error bars are around +/- 400 calories/day.

The study is useless.

lindsey1979

... 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.

Bull****.

Anybody eating at a deficit is burning stored fat, no matter what their macro ratios.

Ugh, you can burn muscle too...

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.

Well, what proof can you give us to support your claims that you are a special snowflake.

You say we are wasting time burning through sugars first before we tap into fat, how much time are we wasting? If you take a 24 hour period what would the difference in fat being oxidized be between a low carb and a high carb diet, if we applied it to the same person?

Also, let's see your hard evidence that calories in vs calories out is false instead of saying it's false because you're evidence.

how long it takes will depend on the person's existing blood sugar levels. if their blood sugar is high, it will take longer for the body to burn through the glucose before switching over to fat. if it's low, it will take less time. it's also based on exercise level, but from what i've experienced, the switch can be anywhere from 2-3 days during normal activity, or 2-3 hours during strenuous exercise.

when a marathon runner hits "the wall" and then gets their "second wind", that's the body switching from burning glucose to burning fat stores.

i have nothing other than my own logs and exercise output showing that don't correlate to any of the standard, accepted calculations of either BMR or oTDEE. comparing my own progress against those shows that i'm only losing at approximately 75% of normal assumptions. i weigh, measure, portion, and log everything i eat, and intentionally under-report my burn from exercise (based on weight, time, speed, incline, and heart rate for cardio... i don't count the energy burned from circuit/weight training).

if we can accept that everything about our bodies is unique based on genetics, including height, skin color, eye color, hair, body type, and even genetically-influenced diseases, then why is it that my caloric burn must be identical to everyone else's? isn't it remotely possible that my ancestors, living in the cold climates of northern russia 200 years ago, developed slower metabolisms to see them through longer winters with less access to food?

Careful. You just committed a cardinal sin. If some of the members of this site find you they will burn you at the stake.

CICO worked for me. But just because it worked for me doesn't mean it works for everybody.

Why don't you, instead of playing the dramatic role all the time, answer the questions addressed to you. You preach and state exaggerated things to try and prove points which always fail.

No one is burning you at the stake but they are calling you out on your posts because it's pretty apparent that you really lack the basics when it comes to nutrition.

CICO, works for everyone. Now try to respond to the posts addressed to you.

i'm sorry... are you yelling at me or yelling at prettykitty15? i don't lack basics in nutrition, what i lack is the ability to accept a contradiction. if something doesn't work for me, then i have to accept that it doesn't work for me and either find out why, or find another method for getting the job done. but at the same time, i'm not going to toe the party line and swear up and down that it works if it doesn't.

lindsey1979

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.

wow... like i haven't heard that one here before. i guess you can be the one to go buy me a new kitchen scale, and stand over me during the day as i measure, weigh, portion, count, and log everything that goes into my mouth.

Arguing with such people is useless. I once fell into the same camp and was told I was a liar, confused, didn't know how to weigh, etc. -- and it was the disconnect here that finally pushed me to get a proper diagnosis (for something I ultimately suspected and had checked by 4 different doctors in the preceding 10 years). The sad part is that there are quite a few special little snowflakes. So many in fact that we aren't really all that special, aside from the fact that some on this site can't see us.

lindsey1979

Calorie intake was self-reported. Error bars are around +/- 400 calories/day.

The study is useless.

Well, that's sort of silly. Then the numbers should have washed. But they didn't.

meridianova

If I had a vested interest in it, yes, I would show you how it's done. It's not really that difficult, which only leads me to the conclusion that it's just another excuse to tell someone when they "can't" lose weight.

you know what, rather than going with the rant i originally typed out, i'll just say this... if the problems i was having were truly solved when i realized (and fixed) my own errors in logging, i would agree. those problems haven't been eliminated, only brought into sharper focus by the fact that i have better data to go on than i did previously.

why can't you just accept that not everyone is built the same way?

runner359

There is plenty science and plenty of studies out there to back up the low carb approach. The idea is that its NOT just calories in calories burned that its actually more complex ... But most folks don't do new information because they made up their mind a long time ago.

Calorie counting also works just for the record.

lindsey1979

Calorie intake was self-reported. Error bars are around +/- 400 calories/day.

The study is useless.

Well, that's sort of silly. Then the numbers should have washed. But they didn't.

How would they have washed is there is no accuracy anywhere. Everyone being inaccurate isn't going to make it accurate as if it were a true double negative.

If everyone was inaccurate then you wouldn't see a huge trend among the groups. There has to be a reason for the trend and the idea that the low carbers were more inaccurate (or less) than the low fat people makes no logical sense.

kimondo666

The thing is with low carb diet you are less hungry casue you eat food that takes long to be digest as food with lot of carb are very fast digested. Then you eat less calories casue you dont feel like eating cheat. Ergo: you eat less calories then. So thats the magic. But if you will eat lots of food with low carb then it is possible to gain weight.

eric_sg61

For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.

The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.

meridianova

My question was directly related to the line where you say we are wasting time burning sugar. My question is, how much time am i wasting? What would the average rate of fat loss be in the 2 diets that would convince me that I'm wasting time doing high carb cuts?


The lacks basic nutrition knowledge was directed at prettykitty15, not you.

lindsey1979 mentioned that in her post:

Well, according to the study, the low carbers did lose more fat than the low-fat folks.

The low carbers lost 2.6% of their fat mass whereas the low fat folks only lost 0.4% of their fat mass. So, the low carbers lost more weight overall and more fat.