avoiding carbs makes you lose weight

mrb_9110

Connsidering that your brain alone NEEDS 130 grams of carbs just to function, I would say this is a bunch of crap she ust pulled out of her *kitten*. (Pardon my french

Schwiggity

Connsidering that your brain alone NEEDS 130 grams of carbs just to function, I would say this is a bunch of crap she ust pulled out of her *kitten*. (Pardon my french

Source? I'm in no way a low-carber, but that seems to be a pretty random number seeing as everyone's carb intake is based off of their caloric intake.

mrb_9110

Considering that your brain alone NEEDS 130 grams of carbs just to function, I would say this is a bunch of crap she ust pulled out of her *kitten*. (Pardon my french

Source? I'm in no way a low-carber, but that seems to be a pretty random number seeing as everyone's carb intake is based off of their caloric intake.

It's a number provided from a nutrition textbook. That's the minimum for your brain to function properly, not a total recommended carb intake.

iva001

Sorry I didnt read the 8 pages of posts, but what about carbs in fruit? I eat 2-3 pieces of fruit per day. Apples banana orange peaches. Is that too much? Im hungry all the time.

mapexdrummer69

Connsidering that your brain alone NEEDS 130 grams of carbs just to function, I would say this is a bunch of crap she ust pulled out of her *kitten*. (Pardon my french

Glucose, more specifically. The brain's need for glucose lessens as glucose from CHO ingestion becomes less available. It functions off of the glucose produced by gluconeogenesis and ketones produced as a result of carb restriction.


Simply put, the brain can function just fine in a low carb enviroment.

mapexdrummer69

Sorry I didnt read the 8 pages of posts, but what about carbs in fruit? I eat 2-3 pieces of fruit per day. Apples banana orange peaches. Is that too much? Im hungry all the time.

There is no one food that will make you gain weight or lose weight in it of itself. Ingesting food=intaking calories.



Weight loss is determined by fat/protein/carb intake and comes down to energy balances, or the difference between calories in vs. calories out. As long as you remain in a deficit, you will lose weight, no matter where you get the calories from.


Now micronutrients like vitamins and minerals should be considered too, so getting a wide range of whole foods can be beneficial.


Fruit SHOULD NOT be avoided and DOES NOT slow weight loss.



The above statement is not intended for someone with diabetes or other MDs.

iva001

Thank you sooooo much

But I have already lost 30lbs (before MFB) trying to lose another 22, and I have alot of stomach fat. Actually I carry fat in my upper arms and inner thighs as well but my stomach is most embarrassing to me.

My (male) friends who are bodybuilders tell me calories is not most important, my carb and protein intake is just as important. Maybe thats true for building muscle, but since its time to take my weightloss to the next level, maybe I should be more like them (protein load) instead of just eating as little as possible (1280 cals/day) with no protein/carb goals?

robertf57

You mean this study?

http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969.full

It's important to look at the data tables when you evaluate a study, not just the abstract or conclusion.

After 12 months, the group that lost the most weight out of women averaging 189 pounds at start lost...10 pounds? (Atkins.) That's less than 1 pound a month. Further, if you look at the data table that tracked weight, ALL groups regained some weight:

http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969/F2.expansion.html

The Atkins group did lose the most by the 2 month mark. But if you calculate what they should be losing based on their average weights (86kg/189 pounds) and average calorie intake (1381), they lose exactly what they should be from plain old calorie restriction - about 10 pounds in two months (at that weight they would need about 1950 cal/day to maintain at sedentary activity levels, at a caloric deficit of 569/day, that's 34,140 calorie deficit or about 9.75 pounds.) Not sure what happened to the other groups. It's possible that Aktins was easier to adhere to, at least initially.

But, in the later part of the study - they all gained! Even if you adjusted for their modest weight loss, each group should have continued to lose slowly on their reported caloric intake, rather than gain. The women in the Aktins group purportedly put on weight while eating 50g/carb a day AND reduced calories in the Atkins "continued weight loss phase" of their plan, and gained the most back out of all the groups. Not good.

This is indicative of problems with reported data. It's disappointing that it wasn't addressed.

If carbs were an factor, then you would expect the ZONE group which restricted carbs to 40% to out-lose the LEARN group who ate a whopping 55-60% carbs. They didn't, at any point.

Weight loss tends to correlate with metabolic profile so that's not unusual that the group that lost the most had the best profile.

I still think it's possible that there is some benefit to carb restriction independent of calorie restriction, but, I wouldn't hang my hat on this one. The only thing that you could conclude is that all of the diets failed by 12 months.

Got anything else?

I have reviewed this study in detail on several occasions. The fact that diets do poorly "in the wild" is an empiric fact. That is not a reason to disparage the study. The issue with caloric assessment using self reports is a limitation of essentially all real world studies of any size and duration where participants are applying the intervention in their real world setting. The methodology has been subject to considerable validation (see the Nurses Health study or the Health Profession's Follow-up Study). Most importantly, given the random assignment across the diet interventions, systemic bias should have been eliminated. (that's why you do randomized trials). I have no idea whether there is a specific non-caloric advantage to a low carb diet ( although even a loss of only 50 Cal per day from ketones over a course of a year could explain the difference. I presented this study in response to a challenge of someone else's post as a randomized controlled trial presenting caloric consumptions that were not significantly different but where weight loses were.

The assertion that failure of the Zone diet speaks against the carb hypothesis would be rejected off-hand by the adherents to the Adkin's diet. ( they would say that the carbohydrate load in ZONE is way too high to gain the benefits). The acknowledgment that the metabolic parameters were best in the group that had the greatest weight loss in no way negates that this was the Atkin's group! The weight loss advantage did not come with dreaded lipid changes Dean Ornish and others fear despite an important increase in saturated fat consumption in this group.

As I noted in my previous post, though, the real problem with this study is group data. Those that were successful on the Low carb diet may actually have had significantly lower caloric intake than those who were unsuccessful in the at group. The difference in calories could have been obscured by the within group calorie variation

If you want to argue that diets generally aren't very successful over a years period, count me out! This is a recurring theme in weight loss research and would require more space to discuss than I have time. If you are looking for better assessment of caloric intake in a real world study, be prepared to wait. To the best of my knowledge, you won't find it.

If you want to explore the impact of higher protein+/- lower glycemic index diet ( not necessarily low carb) on weight loss maintenance in people that actually lost a significant amount of weight ( on a low calorie diet), which includes a sub group that received their food from a center, See the Diogenes study I suggested in my first post. The factoral design allowed independent assessment of these interventions.

I am not interested in pundintry, nor am I particularly interested in ascribing mechanisms beyond the data. I am interested in drawing conclusions supported by empiric data. It is my, perhaps my not so humble, opinion that how an intervention is going to work in the real world is best predicted by studies that use it in the real world.

busygirl1

i have read most of these posts now but people have different definition of 'low carb'. I have had a look at my food and bounce from 100>250 mostly. So what is 'low carb'? how much?

dumb_blondes_rock

soo....can i validate eating a whole large cheese pizza by myself with the reasoning that i test at higher levels than normal, so my brain needs more carbs to function it's genius? Cause if so, i'm totally on board lol.

ps. I'm not really a genius, but if it means i can eat more carbs then i will strive to become one

mapexdrummer69

I have reviewed this study in detail on several occasions. The fact that diets do poorly "in the wild" is an empiric fact. That is not a reason to disparage the study. The issue with caloric assessment using self reports is a limitation of essentially all real world studies of any size and duration where participants are applying the intervention in their real world setting. The methodology has been subject to considerable validation (see the Nurses Health study or the Health Profession's Follow-up Study). Most importantly, given the random assignment across the diet interventions, systemic bias should have been eliminated. (that's why you do randomized trials). I have no idea whether there is a specific non-caloric advantage to a low carb diet ( although even a loss of only 50 Cal per day from ketones over a course of a year could explain the difference. I presented this study in response to a challenge of someone else's post as a randomized controlled trial presenting caloric consumptions that were not significantly different but where weight loses were.

The assertion that failure of the Zone diet speaks against the carb hypothesis would be rejected off-hand by the adherents to the Adkin's diet. ( they would say that the carbohydrate load in ZONE is way too high to gain the benefits). The acknowledgment that the metabolic parameters were best in the group that had the greatest weight loss in no way negates that this was the Atkin's group! The weight loss advantage did not come with dreaded lipid changes Dean Ornish and others fear despite an important increase in saturated fat consumption in this group.

As I noted in my previous post, though, the real problem with this study is group data. Those that were successful on the Low carb diet may actually have had significantly lower caloric intake than those who were unsuccessful in the at group. The difference in calories could have been obscured by the within group calorie variation

If you want to argue that diets generally aren't very successful over a years period, count me out! This is a recurring theme in weight loss research and would require more space to discuss than I have time. If you are looking for better assessment of caloric intake in a real world study, be prepared to wait. To the best of my knowledge, you won't find it.

If you want to explore the impact of higher protein+/- lower glycemic index diet ( not necessarily low carb) on weight loss maintenance in people that actually lost a significant amount of weight ( on a low calorie diet), which includes a sub group that received their food from a center, See the Diogenes study I suggested in my first post. The factoral design allowed independent assessment of these interventions.

I am not interested in pundintry, nor am I particularly interested in ascribing mechanisms beyond the data. I am interested in drawing conclusions supported by empiric data. It is my, perhaps my not so humble, opinion that how an intervention is going to work in the real world is best predicted by studies that use it in the real world.

I don't believe we are arguing the same points. I am in no way saying that a low carb diet is not effective in a real world setting, BUT, I am saying that the results of restricting carbohydrates, outside of the related effect of OVERALL RDEUCED CALORIC INTAKE, have NO benefit on weight loss.


My point being, IF someone is counting calories, as I ASSUME most of the people on MFP are, then there is no NEED to restrict carbohydrates in the context of weight loss. IF it is personal preference, that is a different story. Claims that the body will lose weight faster in the long term due to carbohydrate restriction, seeing that caloric intake doesn't vary from a "normal" isocaloric diet, are not true. See this study. Feel free to scrutinize it as I have the data you have provided.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025815?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

LaJauna

i have read most of these posts now but people have different definition of 'low carb'. I have had a look at my food and bounce from 100>250 mostly. So what is 'low carb'? how much?

Less then 100 grams if you are losing weight and under 150 if you are on maintainance.

LaJauna

i didn't read anyone else's response....but dairy is so uneccisary for our bodies....we don't need it to survive....its just one of those enjoyments we get....we can get vitamin d from the sun and calcium from other sources....but wheat is from the ground and was made for us to eat. Everything is good in moderation, and the body does need carbs to function, it just doesn't need 900 carbs a day. Thats my two cents

ps. there is carbs in vegetables, so if we don't "need" carbs, what in the hell would we eat? meat all day long? no thanks, ill eat my carb filled salad and have enjoyments in life

Look at my profile picture.... the plate says it all animals and plants. Drink water....nuff said.

LaJauna

I've been reading all of these posts and I am beginning to cut back on carbs to help shake things up a bit. I was wondering if anyone knows of a website that has a good list of low or no carb foods? I did a google search but it was a little overwhelming. I just had scrambled eggs for breakfast - dairy - is this OK? I think they are low on carbs but what about dairy? What about cottage cheese? I know - I need to read some labels but a list would be so helpful!
Thank you.

Animals and all their by-products(eggs, bacon, cold cuts....and high fat dairy, including cheeses) and edible plants and their fruits and nuts.

bcattoes

Yes, by all means don't listen to the government. They are all about money!! ...unlike the move industry. :laugh:

Ok this made me laugh....even though i like my documentaries....

Me too actually. Even Fat Head, though I think all the meat lovers might be better off watching Food Inc. (but not while eating!)

Sapporo

I know some of you guys are saying we can live without carbs. Right now I breastfeed my daughter and oatmeal really helps with my milk production. I actually have to eat a certain amount of carbs overall or else I produce a lot less. I know people way up north and other places where they live off of meat only breastfeed their babies. So why do I get cranky drank all the milk already baby if I try low carb? If my body doesn't need carbs this should not be happening.

lodro

I don't think anyone here is saying you can or should live without carbohydrates.

Elizabeth_C34

This thread is like a misinformation train wreck.

sculptandtone

Cutting out carbs will make you lose weight....quickly. You really have to ask yourself if you can stay off the carbs FOREVER? Because in my personal experience as well as every other person I know who has tried a low-carb diet, as soon as you start eating them again (even whole grains), the weight piles on faster and bigger than before.

jonliq

Not much. I still loose weight even with lots of carbs. I just count the calories and don't care about anything else.

i do the same:happy: