what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet?
Replies
-
@Independant24 - I read the article from the NY times which mentioned what you quoted, but then I went to the Tulane website to read about the study from the source (it was an article written by someone from Tulane, dated 9/2/2014) and have been unable to find any mention of lean muscle gain and/or loss. On that article I followed the link for the "study" which takes me to another Tulane article dated 10/28/2008 which also makes no mention. Rather it discusses hypertension and renal function.
I also tried to view the study from the Annals of Internal Medicine, and witht eh brief summary that is open to the public also found no mention of lean muscle variations.
So I guess I'm going to stick with my intial statement that dieting doesn't build lean muscle weight bearing exercises do.
The lean muscle mass reference on the NY times article is a direct quote from Dr. Mozaffarian to the journalist about the results of the study. To view the %'s and data in the study beyond the abstract you have to sign into the website or view it through EBSCO or other college university access.
Even the abstract though shows what was lost by low carb dieters is actual fat not muscle (resulting in higher lean muscle mass)
as opposed to the other diet.
From the abstract - fat mass (mean difference in change, −1.5% [CI, −2.6% to −0.4%]; P = 0.011)
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=19006940 -
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Found the link
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
The only one so far that seems more fair - but is STILL self reporting.
And even they admit
'Since food was not provided this conclusion cannot be made with certainty,'
'
Not all studies have shown greater weight loss with a VLCK diet 'Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
This supports my argument - both groups lost the same amount of weight.
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X
"Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss."
no calories assigned and the study admits that the LC group probably ate less.
All are self reporting and while the top study is interesting it is still flawed I'm afraid.
Not to mention that they are very short term studies - the reduction of carbs means a reduction in water weight which affects the process used to determine fat loss.
I'm going to stay it again.
Low carb diets are not a magical bullet that make you gain muscle mass while losing weight.
Calorie restriction is all that is needed for weight loss - if low carb helps you do that, then great, but it is not necessary.
Now I will stop threadjacking the ops thread - and wonder if they will even bother coming back.0 -
OP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.0
-
OP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.
+10 -
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Found the link
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
The only one so far that seems more fair - but is STILL self reporting.
And even they admit
'Since food was not provided this conclusion cannot be made with certainty,'
'
Not all studies have shown greater weight loss with a VLCK diet 'Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
This supports my argument - both groups lost the same amount of weight.
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X
"Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss."
no calories assigned and the study admits that the LC group probably ate less.
All are self reporting and while the top study is interesting it is still flawed I'm afraid.
Not to mention that they are very short term studies - the reduction of carbs means a reduction in water weight which affects the process used to determine fat loss.
I'm going to stay it again.
Low carb diets are not a magical bullet that make you gain muscle mass while losing weight.
Calorie restriction is all that is needed for weight loss - if low carb helps you do that, then great, but it is not necessary.
Now I will stop threadjacking the ops thread - and wonder if they will even bother coming back.
The purpose of many of the studies was not to compare one calorie restricted diet to another. Rather to study a low carbohydrate approach (without calorie restriction) independently of the low fat/low calorie approach. For this reason you'll see they did not restrict calories for the low carb dieters in several studies and they say as much. Several of them do control calories however. including the study that shows low carb dieters who ate MORE calories still lost more weight and had significant improvements in cholestorol, tryglicerides etc in the process.
I'm glad you've found what works for you. I'm not saying its a magic bullet but it does work for me and therefore I shared my experiences with the OP. I was asked to provide sources and so I have.
Have a lovely day
0 -
OP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.
Because the answers above aren't valid? Do the laws of thermodynamics cease to work in the low carb forum group?0 -
I think maybe low-carb gives people psychic powers. I mean, what other answers can one give based on the information provided? Therefore, they have to be able to read the OP's mind in order to give different or better answers.OP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.
Because the answers above aren't valid? Do the laws of thermodynamics cease to work in the low carb forum group?
I think I'm going low-carb. I want to be psychic!0 -
Jorge, there are thousands of diets out there written by thousands of people and all of them were written to tell what worked for each of them and not what works in general. Once I eliminated all carbs and all processed food from my diet and lost 140 pounds, but the diet was not sustainable. Once I started adding back the carbs, the weight came back with a vengeance. There are people who are successful on a low carb diet, but they also take other variables into account also.
The reason that eating at a caloric deficit is so popular, is that it is probably one of the most sustainable diets you can do. It allows you to eat from all food groups within moderation, without strictly curtailing one.
As others have said, it's really difficult for any of us to offer any sort of advice or suggestions because we don't have enough information. You have not supplied that. The people here, for the most part, want to offer sound advice, so if you would be so kind as to tell us how much you weigh, how tall you are, and open your food diary, we can make some suggestions.
If you haven't as yet started to log your food, I suggest that you do, so you can see for yourself what is going on. Then open it and ask what can be done.
I wish you all the best on your journey.0 -
Yep, zealots gotta zealotOP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.
Because the answers above aren't valid? Do the laws of thermodynamics cease to work in the low carb forum group?0 -
You seriously ate a 1,000 calorie meal on Atkins? It wasn't low carb that was making you not lose weight, it was too many calories. Plain and simple.i have inspected the above post and found that not a word of it contains any factual information. please disregard any and all advice given in that post
I disagree. I have read scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners can stimulate insulin production. The body "reads" them as sugars, even though they are not, and are calorie free.
It is a scientific fact that elevated insulin causes the body to store as fat the foods we are taking in. Any doctor, dietician medical book or even Wikipedia will confirm this.
Therefore, if you drink, say, a Diet Coke with your meal, and the sweeteners are read by the body as sugar, and the pancreas releases a gush of insulin to deal with the (perceived) sugar, then whatever you are eating is going to be stored as fat on your body.
On low carb diets this is especially bad, because you are eating fatty, high-calorie foods and so THAT is what you will store if your body produces insulin. The consequences are not as bad on low calorie diets because your meal is probably only 300 calories instead of 1,000 as it might be on Atkins.
It's also a good idea to go to a low carb forum because you get people that don't know what they're talking about trying to answer your question....such as the person above.
Are you tracking carbs and calories? Are you weighing/measuring everything? Are you sneaking in bites of food that you aren't logging? If you want to stick to low carb as a lifestyle, great, but if you're looking to lose weight then you need to take a look at how many calories you're eating.0 -
Hey now. Wikipedia says so.
You seriously ate a 1,000 calorie meal on Atkins? It wasn't low carb that was making you not lose weight, it was too many calories. Plain and simple.i have inspected the above post and found that not a word of it contains any factual information. please disregard any and all advice given in that post
I disagree. I have read scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners can stimulate insulin production. The body "reads" them as sugars, even though they are not, and are calorie free.
It is a scientific fact that elevated insulin causes the body to store as fat the foods we are taking in. Any doctor, dietician medical book or even Wikipedia will confirm this.
Therefore, if you drink, say, a Diet Coke with your meal, and the sweeteners are read by the body as sugar, and the pancreas releases a gush of insulin to deal with the (perceived) sugar, then whatever you are eating is going to be stored as fat on your body.
On low carb diets this is especially bad, because you are eating fatty, high-calorie foods and so THAT is what you will store if your body produces insulin. The consequences are not as bad on low calorie diets because your meal is probably only 300 calories instead of 1,000 as it might be on Atkins.
It's also a good idea to go to a low carb forum because you get people that don't know what they're talking about trying to answer your question....such as the person above.
Are you tracking carbs and calories? Are you weighing/measuring everything? Are you sneaking in bites of food that you aren't logging? If you want to stick to low carb as a lifestyle, great, but if you're looking to lose weight then you need to take a look at how many calories you're eating.0 -
If one is lowering carbs but not worrying about calories, then I'd suggest worrying about calories. Low carb is sometimes medically necessary, but if one is choosing it solely for weight loss, then it's just another method to lower calories. Calories is most important for weight loss.
Regardless of carbs, if one is eating few enough calories that they feel they should be losing weight, then I'd suggest seeing a physician. There are medical conditions that can make losing weight more difficult and they should be checked for these.
I low-carb, and I'm one of the unlucky ones that have to watch calories, too. If you are on plan, you have no medical issues keeping you from losing weight, then the next thing to look at is calories.
Why is this in fitness and exercise anyway? Exercise isn't the end-all-be-all of weightloss. That's done in the kitchen.0 -
See, its BS like this low carbers have to put up with in the regular forum. Which is why going to the low carb forums is a good idea. Many very educated and well informed people on low carb diets just stick to there to not put up with the MFPers who think their way is the ONLY way.
My guess is you're eating too many calories. Eat less.Hello friends please share your suggestions here what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet ?
Waiting for the suggestions
crazy talk. low carb is magic. have you not seen the links to studies?0 -
But ... you gave the same advice.
See, its BS like this low carbers have to put up with in the regular forum. Which is why going to the low carb forums is a good idea. Many very educated and well informed people on low carb diets just stick to there to not put up with the MFPers who think their way is the ONLY way.
My guess is you're eating too many calories. Eat less.Hello friends please share your suggestions here what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet ?
Waiting for the suggestions
crazy talk. low carb is magic. have you not seen the links to studies?0 -
I am not quite sure why the recent study comparing low carb to low fat diets is cited when someone posts that there isn't anything magic about low carb. I don't think any of us are saying that the best thing to do is to go low fat instead. Instead the arguments are mainly about the importance of calories in/out. If someone is overeating and they tend to consume all their extra calories in carbs (which is common) than lowering their carbs will also lower their overall calorie intake. If you had a protein source that you gobbled down mindlessly you would also have to cut back on this food item. There are also health conditions that may be worsened by a type of macro so, of course, it makes sense to minimize consuming it.
The diet that is best for most people is the diet they can stick with. The only problem I have with low carb advocates is that they often refer to as if it was the "only thing" and some type of miracle based on the truth of how our body works. I worry that some folks that can't manage to live this way may take these claims as gospel and give up and blame themselves, instead of trying something different that will work for them. For most people the important thing is to loss weight to restore or maintain health.
If low carb is the only diet that works for you weight loss wise and you still have energy for exercise and life in general, then you have found what works for you. However, for many people they would find it difficult to maintain and not necessary for them to loss weight. At the end of the day no matter what other nuances there are to your diet, portion and calorie control and activity level factor into weight loss success.0 -
Yep, zealots gotta zealotOP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.
Because the answers above aren't valid? Do the laws of thermodynamics cease to work in the low carb forum group?
"
Because the answers above aren't valid? Do the laws of thermodynamics cease to work in the low carb forum group?"
No. :noway: Because there is more than one variable to the equation, and low-carbers are informed on how it all works and can troubleshoot specific problems that those not familiar with the diet don't readily know. Sure "calorie-deficit" is all some people can say. There may be other issues than that. In the low-carb forum, you won't get people who don't know what they are talking about confusing the issue. Or haters being unhelpful. It very well could be calories, but there could be other issues with what they are doing too that need addressed.
"Yep, zealots gotta zealot"
Pot calling the kettle... Calorie-deficit peeps are just as zealous. Introspection is a wonderful thing.
Haters gonna hate. And be verbal about it as if we've not all heard about it before. :yawn:0 -
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Found the link
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
The only one so far that seems more fair - but is STILL self reporting.
And even they admit
'Since food was not provided this conclusion cannot be made with certainty,'
'
Not all studies have shown greater weight loss with a VLCK diet 'Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
This supports my argument - both groups lost the same amount of weight.
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X
"Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss."
no calories assigned and the study admits that the LC group probably ate less.
All are self reporting and while the top study is interesting it is still flawed I'm afraid.
Not to mention that they are very short term studies - the reduction of carbs means a reduction in water weight which affects the process used to determine fat loss.
I'm going to stay it again.
Low carb diets are not a magical bullet that make you gain muscle mass while losing weight.
Calorie restriction is all that is needed for weight loss - if low carb helps you do that, then great, but it is not necessary.
Now I will stop threadjacking the ops thread - and wonder if they will even bother coming back.
The purpose of many of the studies was not to compare one calorie restricted diet to another. Rather to study a low carbohydrate approach (without calorie restriction) independently of the low fat/low calorie approach. For this reason you'll see they did not restrict calories for the low carb dieters in several studies and they say as much. Several of them do control calories however. including the study that shows low carb dieters who ate MORE calories still lost more weight and had significant improvements in cholestorol, tryglicerides etc in the process.
I'm glad you've found what works for you. I'm not saying its a magic bullet but it does work for me and therefore I shared my experiences with the OP. I was asked to provide sources and so I have.
Have a lovely day
Then from a weight loss standpoint the studies are useless because a calorie deficit is the reason for weight loss, you can't take that out of the equation and then say something else "caused" weight loss.
Here's a simple "study" you can do, or anyone else who believes they can eat low carb without worrying about calories.
Figure out your TDEE. For one month eat about 200 calories above your TDEE while eating very low carbs. Of course you will have to replace those calories that were automatically reduced by eating low carb with something else ie. protein or fat. Make sure you are in a calorie surplus everyday while keeping carbs to a minimum. After one month come back and report what happened...
I have a theory what will happen but I will await the "facts"...
Good Luck! :drinker:
Ooops, sorry for offering you a beer above. Too many carbs...0 -
Personally I will agree with some and some I do not. I do however believe in the research of health and fitness. I would first suggest you go talk to your doctor and see what and where you want to be. If one lifestyle is better than the other. These are all personal views that we all have for ourselves. Mine on the other hand (view) I eat 6 to 7 times a day, yes you can call it clean eating no process foods and such but to each his own. I eat lean meats and veggies and protein shakes on top of it. But this is what makes my body work and the composition is not the same as others. The body is different for everyone and its like a combination that you have to find what works to unlock the weight loss plateau or get the body burning. The only advise I can give is this. go to the doctor or listen don't listen to people here. It is not a diet that you are doing this is a lifestyle change to make or achieve your goals. Lifestyle means that you are changing the way you think and eat whether you become proactive in your health or just doing it for some other reason. First start at this research learn somethings and become aware of the do's and donts to your objectives. Learn the human body without going to medical school. The links below should get you started in this journey and help you to the next step in your endeavors. My comments are my own and I will tell you what works for me and not everyone else.
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20140901/low-carb-beats-low-fat-for-weight-loss-heart-health-study
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
For the non researchers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_research_related_to_low-carbohydrate_diets
This will link to other areas to look for. Be creative
Google search for you also to help get some ideas on the thougths of searching.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=low carb and lose weight study
Have a great day and I hope you find what you are looking for.0 -
TIL that protein shakes are not processed food.0
-
Other than "eat less"? No. They aren't even answers to the OP. It's just the usuals arguing amongst themselves.OP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.
Because the answers above aren't valid? Do the laws of thermodynamics cease to work in the low carb forum group?0 -
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Found the link
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/13
The only one so far that seems more fair - but is STILL self reporting.
And even they admit
'Since food was not provided this conclusion cannot be made with certainty,'
'
Not all studies have shown greater weight loss with a VLCK diet 'Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
This supports my argument - both groups lost the same amount of weight.
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X
"Both diet groups reported increased cognitive eating restraint, facilitating short-term weight loss; however, the decrease in hunger perception in the low-carbohydrate/high-protein group may have contributed to a greater percentage of BW loss."
no calories assigned and the study admits that the LC group probably ate less.
All are self reporting and while the top study is interesting it is still flawed I'm afraid.
Not to mention that they are very short term studies - the reduction of carbs means a reduction in water weight which affects the process used to determine fat loss.
I'm going to stay it again.
Low carb diets are not a magical bullet that make you gain muscle mass while losing weight.
Calorie restriction is all that is needed for weight loss - if low carb helps you do that, then great, but it is not necessary.
Now I will stop threadjacking the ops thread - and wonder if they will even bother coming back.
The purpose of many of the studies was not to compare one calorie restricted diet to another. Rather to study a low carbohydrate approach (without calorie restriction) independently of the low fat/low calorie approach. For this reason you'll see they did not restrict calories for the low carb dieters in several studies and they say as much. Several of them do control calories however. including the study that shows low carb dieters who ate MORE calories still lost more weight and had significant improvements in cholestorol, tryglicerides etc in the process.
I'm glad you've found what works for you. I'm not saying its a magic bullet but it does work for me and therefore I shared my experiences with the OP. I was asked to provide sources and so I have.
Have a lovely day
Then from a weight loss standpoint the studies are useless because a calorie deficit is the reason for weight loss, you can't take that out of the equation and then say something else "caused" weight loss.
Here's a simple "study" you can do, or anyone else who believes they can eat low carb without worrying about calories.
Figure out your TDEE. For one month eat about 200 calories above your TDEE while eating very low carbs. Of course you will have to replace those calories that were automatically reduced by eating low carb with something else ie. protein or fat. Make sure you are in a calorie surplus everyday while keeping carbs to a minimum. After one month come back and report what happened...
I have a theory what will happen but I will await the "facts"...
Good Luck! :drinker:
Ooops, sorry for offering you a beer above. Too many carbs...
That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day full of bacon and fatty foods. It is possible to lose weight with a low carb (or no carb) diet like Atkins. Calories are not the only way to lose weight.
With that said. I take a more balanced approach. I eat carbs and protien with each meal. If I start stuffing my face with bread I begin craving crap and eating bad things. I feel lowering the carbs I intake helps me feel fuller longer.
I've taken your test and it works well for me. Cheers. 0 -
You got that right!
Yep, zealots gotta zealotOP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.
Because the answers above aren't valid? Do the laws of thermodynamics cease to work in the low carb forum group?0 -
That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day
You're young and you weigh more than 200 pounds.
Someone older or closer to a healthy weight (or both) would not lose on 3,000 calories a day, no matter what that person ate. You are eating fewer calories than you're burning and that is why you're having success.0 -
Exactly right. I'm pushing 50, and at a healthy weight and my maintenance calories are closer to 2,000. And my sweet spot for losing is around 1500.That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day
You're young and you weigh more than 200 pounds.
Someone older or closer to a healthy weight (or both) would not lose on 3,000 calories a day, no matter what that person ate. You are eating fewer calories than you're burning and that is why you're having success.0 -
Hello friends please share your suggestions here what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet ?
Waiting for the suggestions
I would try eating a diet where my intake was less than my output.0 -
Exactly right. I'm pushing 50, and at a healthy weight and my maintenance calories are closer to 2,000. And my sweet spot for losing is around 1500.That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day
You're young and you weigh more than 200 pounds.
Someone older or closer to a healthy weight (or both) would not lose on 3,000 calories a day, no matter what that person ate. You are eating fewer calories than you're burning and that is why you're having success.
Lucky you. I have a couple of years before I hit 50 and my sweet spot for losing weight is 1350. Maintenance is somewhere around 1600-1700. Sucks to have a sluggish metabolism.0 -
That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day full of bacon and fatty foods. It is possible to lose weight with a low carb (or no carb) diet like Atkins. Calories are not the only way to lose weight.
With that said. I take a more balanced approach. I eat carbs and protien with each meal. If I start stuffing my face with bread I begin craving crap and eating bad things. I feel lowering the carbs I intake helps me feel fuller longer.
I've taken your test and it works well for me. Cheers.
i eat ice cream and captain crunch and i also lose on 3000+ calories per day. what's your point?0 -
That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day full of bacon and fatty foods. It is possible to lose weight with a low carb (or no carb) diet like Atkins. Calories are not the only way to lose weight.
With that said. I take a more balanced approach. I eat carbs and protien with each meal. If I start stuffing my face with bread I begin craving crap and eating bad things. I feel lowering the carbs I intake helps me feel fuller longer.
I've taken your test and it works well for me. Cheers.
i eat ice cream and captain crunch and i also lose on 3000+ calories per day. what's your point?
I really hate you both right now. >_<0 -
Try having untreated hypothyroid. I gain on 1,000 calories (with exercise).
Exactly right. I'm pushing 50, and at a healthy weight and my maintenance calories are closer to 2,000. And my sweet spot for losing is around 1500.That is the thing that is hard for many people to understand. I've lost weight eating 3000+ calories a day
You're young and you weigh more than 200 pounds.
Someone older or closer to a healthy weight (or both) would not lose on 3,000 calories a day, no matter what that person ate. You are eating fewer calories than you're burning and that is why you're having success.
Lucky you. I have a couple of years before I hit 50 and my sweet spot for losing weight is 1350. Maintenance is somewhere around 1600-1700. Sucks to have a sluggish metabolism.0 -
Other than "eat less"? No. They aren't even answers to the OP. It's just the usuals arguing amongst themselves.OP: Ask your question in the low carb group here. You'll get a helpful answer there.
Because the answers above aren't valid? Do the laws of thermodynamics cease to work in the low carb forum group?
Nobody can answer the op until they provide more information. The kind asked for in the first few posts.
Feel free to try though.
Oh wait, you didn't either.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions