what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Yikes! That sucks, for sure! I've had mine tested, no problems, just a slow metabolism. Hopefully they have or will get your thyroid levels corrected. I have two dogs on soloxine, so I know how that can wreak havoc on the body.0 -
Well, I think it's been going on a while but my PCP is pretty clueless. I don't think he ran the right tests way back when and TSH isn't a completely reliable test. So it can come back normal or low even if you have a problem. I suspect Hashimoto's, but I don't have the official diagnosis yet. Going to see the specialist in a few weeks and hopefully get things back under control!
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.
Yikes! That sucks, for sure! I've had mine tested, no problems, just a slow metabolism. Hopefully they have or will get your thyroid levels corrected. I have two dogs on soloxine, so I know how that can wreak havoc on the body.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
Eat fewer calories or exercise more.
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?
OP is eating low carb and has no idea how many calories they are consuming and is shocked, SHOCKED that they aren't losing weight. letting the OP know that low carb isn't magic and doesn't work unless they are still in a calorie deficit would seem to be exactly the type of answer the OP needs, no?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...
S'all good. Don't need yo' stinkin' beer. We've got vodka and whiskey to fall back on. :drinker: Mmmmmm....whiskey on the rocks....
0 -
Thus the reason I said the "eat less" answers actually answered his question.
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?
OP is eating low carb and has no idea how many calories they are consuming and is shocked, SHOCKED that they aren't losing weight. letting the OP know that low carb isn't magic and doesn't work unless they are still in a calorie deficit would seem to be exactly the type of answer the OP needs, no?0 -
He probably abandoned his thread. As they often do when they get thread jacked.
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.
Which is why I suggested he ask in the low carb forum.0 -
Yup. And I move a ton. I average 12,000 steps a day (running, walking, cycling), and lift weights, and do Pilates... And with that I burn about 2,000.
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 -
Thus the reason I said the "eat less" answers actually answered his question.
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?
OP is eating low carb and has no idea how many calories they are consuming and is shocked, SHOCKED that they aren't losing weight. letting the OP know that low carb isn't magic and doesn't work unless they are still in a calorie deficit would seem to be exactly the type of answer the OP needs, no?
aaaaand if they don't realize that "eat less" is part of the equation (and the *main* part....possibly the only part) then they actually do need to hear the rest of what's going on so they can be dissuaded from the Low Carb is Magik thing. i would contend that most of what's going on in here isn't "thread jacking" but more of a disillusionment intervention.0 -
Nah. It's the usual sanctioned threadjacking. On both sides.
Thus the reason I said the "eat less" answers actually answered his question.
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?
OP is eating low carb and has no idea how many calories they are consuming and is shocked, SHOCKED that they aren't losing weight. letting the OP know that low carb isn't magic and doesn't work unless they are still in a calorie deficit would seem to be exactly the type of answer the OP needs, no?
aaaaand if they don't realize that "eat less" is part of the equation (and the *main* part....possibly the only part) then they actually do need to hear the rest of what's going on so they can be dissuaded from the Low Carb is Magik thing. i would contend that most of what's going on in here isn't "thread jacking" but more of a disillusionment intervention.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions