low carb or not?

Grokette

I eat chocolate, cake, ice cream etc. on the regular and I still lose weight.

Good for you that your Endocrine system is not broken.

Lift_hard_eat_big

I eat chocolate, cake, ice cream etc. on the regular and I still lose weight.

Good for you that your Endocrine system is not broken.

At least not yet. We'll see what happens when I hit my 50's. Several of my family members were diagnosed with diabetes around that age.

bcattoes

You can lose weight whether you eat low carb or not. You will get all kinds of nonsense advice on carbs from MFP members. The fact is carbs affect different people differently. If you have any type of medical condition at all this can affect how many carbs you should eat, so you should consult your doctor or nutritionist (just because someone else's nutritionist recommended something is not reason to follow the advice. Any good nutritionist tailors their advice on an individual level). If you have a doctor that is familiar with you and your medical history, that is the best place to start.

But if you can't or don't want to live your life eating low carb, and you have no medical reason to do so, then why do it now? Finding a diet plan you can live with long term is important for keeping the weight off long term.

joejccva71

Exact words of Lyle McDonald:

Despite oft-heard claims to the contrary, there is no actual physiological requirement for dietary carbohydrate. Even the RDA handbook acknowledges this, right before recommending that a prudent diet should contain a lot of carbohydrates.

To understand why carbs aren’t essential, I need to discuss the concept of an essential nutrient briefly. And, in brief, an essential nutrient is defined as:

1.Any nutrient that is required for survival.
2.Can’t be made by the body.

When carbohydrates are restricted completely, the body still has a small requirement for glucose (although this decreases over time) and the body has to find something to make glucose out of. That something is lactate and pyruvate (produced from glucose metabolism), glycerol (from fat metabolism) and some amino acids. It’s the amino acid use that can be problematic since they have to come from somewhere.

Now, if no food is being consumed (e.g. total starvation), that somewhere is generally muscle tissue (the body will also break down liver proteins); the body will readily break down body protein to scavenge the amino acids it needs to produce glucose. In doing so, the muscle released alanine and glutamine (produced in the muscle from the breakdown of leucine and the branch chained amino acids, so you know) which can be converted to glucose in the liver. This process goes by the unwieldy name of gluconeogenesis which just means the production of new glucose.

Protein losses during total starvation are extremely high to start, gradually decreasing as the brain switches over to using ketones for fuel (this reduces the body’s glucose requirements which means less protein has to be broken down to make glucose). Even so, during complete starvation there is always some loss of body protein. Over long periods of time, this goes from harmful (because function is compromised from muscle loss) to downright fatal. Especially as folks get extremely lean and body protein breakdown increases.

In this context, an under-appreciated fact of liver and protein metabolism (but discussed in detail in The Protein Book) is that over half of all ingested amino acids are broken down in the liver in the first place. A good portion of those can be used to make glucose and this is especially true when carbohydrates are restricted.

funkycamper

I say no-ish. I eat carbs, but not lots of potato or white bread carbs. I eat fruit, sandwich thins or other low cal bread and sometimes pasta or brown rice. I have lost 90 pounds since January of this year, so it has obviously not held me back.

What works for you may not work for someone else. As someone stated above, people who are insulin resistant usually need to be far more careful with the amount of carbs they eat in order to lose weight. I know that about 80-90 carbs max a day is all my body can handle. Above that amount, and I won't lose a pound no matter how low I keep my calories because I will have too much insulin, the fat-holding hormone, raging through my system. I also get very sluggish, groggy, and retain water to the point where my feet hurt and shoes are tight if I eat more than that many carbs in a day. I actually do best around 40-60 carbs/day.

Of course, this isn't true for someone without insulin issues and you may be one of those lucky people.

LowCarbForLife

Depending on your hormones and metabolic environment, you may need to continue doing low carb to lose weight. Not everyone responds favorably to oatmeal, fruit and whole grains.

That said - whatever you decide to do, give your body time to adjust. If you're going to introduce carbs, start with low-glycemic carbs - berries, yams / sweet potatoes that will not spike your insulin.

Couldn't agree more, I recommend anyone to read "Why we get fat" or watch "Fat Head" to get a better understanding how this works and try it out. If not for weight loss but for health benefits.

only read that book if you want your head filled with nonsense (besides his writing on the lipid hypothesis)

LOL, thanks but I've read enough of Taubes work to know that calling his writing nonsense smells a lot like sour grapes.

From garytaubes.com, addressing his critics charge of cherry-picking his data:
In explaining my problems with food reward and palatability as a viable hypothesis of obesity, I’m going to repeat many of the arguments I made in my books for why the energy balance paradigm itself seems to be such a failure. (Not all of them because life is short, but many.) And these, of course, will also provide the rationale for why something like the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis is necessary. It doesn’t imply that the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis is right, but that something very much like it almost assuredly is. I’ll also explain why I find many of the observations and some of the experiments used to support the hypothesis meaningless and inconsequential. I hope, as I did with my books, to create what Kuhn called a “playable game.”

But here’s another catch: This map-making exercise can be perceived as a justification for cherry-picking of the data, which, in a way, it is. But I’m arguing that such selective interpretation of the data is a fundamental requirement to make progress in any field of science, and particularly one as off the rails as that of obesity and nutrition. It is inherent to the process that Kuhn described as “map-making,” to taking a non-playable game – a dysfunctional paradigm – and making it playable.

This was a point the physicist Richard Feynman made indirectly back in 1965 in The Character of Physical Law, the book version of a series of lectures he gave the year before at Cornell University. (The lectures themselves are available on line and are worth viewing for many reasons, one of which is the experience of listening to one of the great thinkers of the 20th century express himself in a thick New Yawk/Queens accent.) Feynman was talking about how physicists find a new law of nature, and this is what he said:

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

But then he added the caveat:

It is true that one has to check a little to make sure that it is wrong, because whoever did the experiment may have reported incorrectly, or there may have been some feature in the experiment that was not noticed, some dirt or something; or the man who computed the consequences, even though it may have been the one who made the guesses, could have made some mistake in the analysis. These are obvious remarks, so when I say if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong, I mean after the experiment has been checked, the calculations have been checked, and the thing has been rubbed back and forth a few times to make sure that the consequences are logical consequences from the guess, and that in fact it disagrees with a very carefully checked experiment.

And this is the point. Experimental results and observations have to be rubbed back and forth a few times to see if the interpretations that first come to mind are really justified, and whether the experiment, for that fact, is a “very carefully checked” experiment. And what we want to know is whether the result really disagrees or agrees with the predictions. Or is something else going on? Not just dirt in the equipment, but maybe another interpretation entirely – an alternative hypothesis? What was missed in the interpretation? Artifacts in the experimental apparatus? Confounding factors that might explain the observational evidence?

Asking these questions, indeed, leads to all kinds of cherry picking of the data, what a Scottish physician once described to me as “Bing Crosby Epidemiology” – i.e., accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative. And the paradigm in which we live, not surprisingly, will determine how we define positive and negative and so what we accentuate and what we eliminate. Depending on our paradigm or our preferred hypotheses, we’ll put more or less effort into the rubbing back and forth process based on whether the experimental results agree with our notions or don’t.

As I’ve said before in various venues, at one time in the writing of Good Calories, Bad Calories I had a 400,000 word unfinished draft. I couldn’t complete it because it was obviously far too long already – twice as long as it should be — and yet I had important chapters yet to write. I solved the problem by giving it to my editor to read with the suggestion that maybe we could make it two books. He read it in its entirety (one of many acts of editorship that earned my undying devotion) and said, no, one book. We proceeded to cut the document by more than half, so I could then write the chapters that still had to be written and end up with a book that was under 200,000 words (bibliography and endnotes, not included).

Much of what was removed was the rubbing back and forth. I would present an observation – high levels of insulin, for instance, in obese subjects first observed in the early 1960s – and then I would explain how it was interpreted to support the conventional wisdom (we get fat because we overeat and being fat then causes insulin resistance and so increases insulin levels) and why that wasn’t necessarily the correct interpretation and how the same observation supported alternative hypotheses as well. And I would go back and forth with arguments and counterarguments.

My editor pointed out that this wasn’t necessary; that my job was to present my interpretation of the evidence and if someone wanted to challenge it later, so be it. I could provide the arguments and counterarguments, the rubbing back and forth, then.

What I always found amusing once the book was published (okay, amusing in an irritating way) were the critics who would first complain that GC,BC was too long – I go “on and on about experiments old and new,” as Gina Kolata put it in the New York Times – and then upbraid me for leaving something out that they considered important. And so when Kolata pointed out that “definitive” experiments by Leibel and Hirsch should have been in my book because they refuted my arguments – thus accusing me, in effect, of the supposedly heinous crime of cherry picking — I was left to point out in a letter to the editor that the experiment (no “s” at the end, as Kolata had it) was poorly done, didn’t address the salient issues, that Kolata got many of her facts wrong, and that her use of the word “definitive” left much to be desired and that “ambiguous” was a far more accurate description.

So Kolata read the Leibel/Hirsch experiment in a way that supported her beliefs and didn’t bother to rub them back and forth. (She had just published a book a few months earlier that adhered closely to the conventional wisdom.) And I did, because of the implication that the experiment refuted my arguments. I had to see if it did indeed do what Kolata claimed and concluded (not surprisingly, considering my bias) that it didn’t. Or at least that it couldn’t be used, as she had used it, to refute my arguments.

This selective interpretation of the evidence is human nature, as Francis Bacon pointed out almost 400 years ago. But it’s a necessary part of science. For a paradigm to shift, a significant proportion of experimental results will have to be reinterpreted – meaning the interpretation in the new paradigm and the significance is going to be different than it had been under the old. Some significant portion of experiment results will be deemed irrelevant, on the basis that they don’t shed meaningful light on the subject. And, of course, how meaningful is defined is dependent on the paradigm.

So we’re back to the tricky business of assessing who or what is right in such a situation – in determining where to place our bets?

The ultimate determination should indeed be based on data, but not just any data or any experiment that seems relevant. A controversy would not exist if it were not possible for most experimental results and most observations to be consistent with both hypotheses, both paradigms. The key to making progress is to identify observations in nature or generate them by experiment that are consistent with the predictions of only one of the competing paradigms or hypotheses, not both — or not all, if there are more than two. (Thus invariably prompting proponents of the unsuccessful paradigms/hypotheses to evoke what philosophers and historians of science would call “epicycles” to rationalize away the negative evidence.) The problem with the Hirsch/Leibel experiments, as I pointed out in my letter to the Times, is that the results were consistent with both hypotheses, and so the solution was not to conclude on the basis of a popularity contest which was right, but to advocate for better experiments.

What we ultimately want, as Feynman suggested, is an experiment or an observation that can unambiguously — i.e., rubbing back and forth gets us as close to nowhere as we can get — differentiate between hypotheses or paradigms. The competing hypotheses/paradigms predict different results and only one of the predictions holds up. Meaningful experimental results or meaningful observations are those that refute one hypothesis but not the other. Anything less doesn’t help us and doesn’t answer the question of what or who is right. So a constant reminder in this business is to ask ourselves whether the observations or experimental results we’re discussing serve this purpose: can they differentiate between the two hypotheses? If they can’t, let’s move on and find (or fund) ones that can.

Acg67

Depending on your hormones and metabolic environment, you may need to continue doing low carb to lose weight. Not everyone responds favorably to oatmeal, fruit and whole grains.

That said - whatever you decide to do, give your body time to adjust. If you're going to introduce carbs, start with low-glycemic carbs - berries, yams / sweet potatoes that will not spike your insulin.

Couldn't agree more, I recommend anyone to read "Why we get fat" or watch "Fat Head" to get a better understanding how this works and try it out. If not for weight loss but for health benefits.

only read that book if you want your head filled with nonsense (besides his writing on the lipid hypothesis)

Taubes says overeating is a symptom of obesity not the cause of obesity based on self reported data that said the obese ate the same or less than the lean, but leaves out the obese chronically self report upwards of a 50% lower caloric intake then they actually do

Controlled studies have shown no metabolic advantage to keto diets

Taubes fails to mention that protein is also highly insulingenic, which throws a wrench in his main hypothesis about CHO/insulin/fat

he makes no mention of when DNL actually occurs (it's a pretty rare process)

fat can be stored in the absence of insulin (oops another strike against his hypothesis)

i can go on and on...

questionablemethods

Controlled studies have shown no metabolic advantage to keto diets

I don't doubt that such studies exist, just wondering if you could cite. Please and thanks.

Acg67

Controlled studies have shown no metabolic advantage to keto diets

I don't doubt that such studies exist, just wondering if you could cite. Please and thanks.

not a problem

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

questionablemethods

Controlled studies have shown no metabolic advantage to keto diets

I don't doubt that such studies exist, just wondering if you could cite. Please and thanks.

not a problem

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

Are there others? (You said "studies.")

Acg67

Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Feb, 1996; 63 (2): 174-178.

Yang MU, Van Itallie TB (1976) Composition of weight loss during short term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets. J Clin Invest 58:722–30.

Alford BB, et al. (1990) The effects of variation in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. J AM Diet Assoc 90:534–40.

Wing RR, et al. (1995) Cognitive effects of ketogenic weight-reducing diets. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 19:811–6.

questionablemethods

Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or high carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Feb, 1996; 63 (2): 174-178.

Yang MU, Van Itallie TB (1976) Composition of weight loss during short term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets. J Clin Invest 58:722–30.

Alford BB, et al. (1990) The effects of variation in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. J AM Diet Assoc 90:534–40.

Wing RR, et al. (1995) Cognitive effects of ketogenic weight-reducing diets. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 19:811–6.

Thanks. I haven't read all of those, but for the first one, I'm not surprised that both groups lost a bunch of weight -- they were each only eating 1000 cals/day, right?

Again, I don't dispute that caloric balance determines weight loss, but the advantage I think that low-carb diets have for many is that they allow for more natural reductions in calories when eating naturally (not in a clinical setting, not tracking every bite that is eaten). I have no idea whether they give a metabolic advantage to metabolically-healthy individuals or even metabolically-deranged individuals. What I would like to see is a long-term study comparing weight gain, instead of loss, on those eating ad libitum low carb/high fat versus those eating high carb/low fat.

Acg67

Again, I don't dispute that caloric balance determines weight loss, but the advantage I think that low-carb diets have for many is that they allow for more natural reductions in calories when eating naturally (not in a clinical setting, not tracking every bite that is eaten). I have no idea whether they give a metabolic advantage to metabolically-healthy individuals or even metabolically-deranged individuals. What I would like to see is a long-term study comparing weight gain, instead of loss, on those eating ad libitum low carb/high fat versus those eating high carb/low fat.

i believe there is a study tracking weight changes on low carb vs other diets, i have to find the citation for it. And you may be right that in ad libitum settings it's easier to restrict cals low carbing, and that is most likely because you're cutting out or severely limiting an entire macronutrient, but i believe also studies show that keto/low carb diets have some of the worst adherence rates (i think that is what made US News rank paleo the worst of like 30 diets, low adherence, i know it as ranked last but forget their rationale).

Also i know there is another observational study that showed atkins showed greater weight loss then 2 or 3 other diets at 3 and 6 months but no difference in weight loss at 1 yr, i have to find the citation for that one as well

LowCarbForLife

Controlled studies have shown no metabolic advantage to keto diets

I don't doubt that such studies exist, just wondering if you could cite. Please and thanks.

not a problem

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

It is very interesting to me that the et al in that study includes Barry Sears. The actual problem with that study imo was its tiny sample size and the fact that all the obese participants were limited to 1500 calories per day.

The other studies you cite do not address the issue of a metabolic advantage of a ketogenic diet.

Pebble321

To return to the original question... I think it would be a good idea to start thinking about what you are planning to do long term.
Yo have lost a bunch of weight pretty quickly following a restrictive diet, but presumably you aren't planning on living on diet shakes for the rest of your life. And realistically you aren't likely to keep losing weight at this rate either - there is nothing wrong with steady progress as long as you are progressing and learning.
My best suggestion is to look at your diet a meal at a time and start looking for healthy meal options that work for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. This way you can start to phase out the shakes and bars and get back to eating actual food.
As to whether you eat low carb or not - clearly that is a personal choice. Some people obviously respond better to a low carb diet, though that's not my choice of eating pattern. Everyone is different.
Why not try slowly adding back some of the carbs that you miss (for example have raisin toast for breakfast once a week instead of a shake and see how this works for you over a few weeks).
This way you don't have to feel as though you are depriving yourself and you are building up a range of meals and sncks that suit you and your body.

LowCarbForLife

Get back to me when you've read them.

Brehm BJ, et al. A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:1617–1623.
Samaha FF, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2074–81.
Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents. J Pediatr. 2003 Mar;142(3):253–8.
Aude YW, et al. The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat. A Randomized Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2141–2146.
Volek JS, 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 2004, 1:13.
Yancy WS Jr, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet versus a Low-Fat Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia. A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:769–777.
Nichols-Richardsson 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. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:1433–1437.
Gardner CD, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and learn Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women. The a to z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2007;297:969–977.
Shai I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med 2008;359(3);229–41.
Krebs NF, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents. J Pediatr 2010;157:252-8.
Summer SS, et al. Adiponectin Changes in Relation to the Macronutrient Composition of a Weight-Loss Diet. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Mar 31. [Epub ahead of print]
Daly ME, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes–a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2006 Jan;23(1):15–20.
Westman EC, et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low- glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr. Metab (Lond.)2008 Dec 19;5:36.

Acg67

Get back to me when you've read them.

Brehm BJ, et al. A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:1617–1623.
Samaha FF, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2074–81.
Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents. J Pediatr. 2003 Mar;142(3):253–8.
Aude YW, et al. The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat. A Randomized Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2141–2146.
Volek JS, 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 2004, 1:13.
Yancy WS Jr, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet versus a Low-Fat Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia. A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:769–777.
Nichols-Richardsson 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. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:1433–1437.
Gardner CD, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and learn Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women. The a to z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2007;297:969–977.
Shai I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med 2008;359(3);229–41.
Krebs NF, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents. J Pediatr 2010;157:252-8.
Summer SS, et al. Adiponectin Changes in Relation to the Macronutrient Composition of a Weight-Loss Diet. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Mar 31. [Epub ahead of print]
Daly ME, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes–a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2006 Jan;23(1):15–20.
Westman EC, et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low- glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr. Metab (Lond.)2008 Dec 19;5:36.

i only checked the first 4, where are the controlled metabolic ward studies that actually control intake?

Acg67

also in those studies there are zero confounding factors that are not controlled for, correct?

funkycamper

I know I'm stepping on a hornet's nest here but you could have 100 studies telling me I'm wrong and I won't believe you. I gained about 60# eating the high-carb/low-fat diet that a dietitian gave me for hypoglycemia. This was on top of the 50# I had already gained through pregnancies, etc. putting me at a high of 237.

I was starving all the time and miserable in so many ways but rarely ate over 1500 calories in a day, usually closer to 1200. I felt like a physical wreck, was exhausted all the time, had severe emotional mood swings including severe temper tantrums, became depressed and suicidal and, of course, was still having glucose highs/crashes which was causing most of these problems. I'm surprised my husband didn't divorce me and that my kids didn't run away from home. It was nasty and I wasn't nice a lot of the time.

It took me years of reading everything I could get my hands on before I ever heard of insulinimia (I know I'm spelling that wrong) but I'm referring to the fact that my body way over produced insulin based on the high carbs making me insulin resistant and, eventually, diabetic. And even longer to consider a low-carb eating plan. One reason why I avoided it is that my taste buds love bread, potatos, rice, etc. It's very hard for me to eat meat unless it's smothered in a casserole, between bread, a pasty, and such. I just don't like it much.

But the reality is that eating more protein and lower carb has made a world of difference to me. I am gradually losing weight without hunger (although I do sometimes have a hard time getting all my calories in), my moods are stable and good, I have more energy, I think more clearly, and my blood sugar readings are much improved.

I struggle to keep my carbs below about 60/day (which seems to be the cut-off for me of what my body can handle) and I never get enough protein but I keep working on it. But I feel and look so much better this way it's worth it to keep trying to perfect this way of eating for me. Oh, and my cholesterol numbers and blood pressure are excellent.

Each side of this argument can find hundreds of studies to support their position. And the other side can poke holes in each of the other sides studies. And I realize my anecdotal personal story isn't going to convince anyone but myself but that's OK.

LowCarbForLife

also in those studies there are zero confounding factors that are not controlled for, correct?

Please make the same disclaimer about the studies you cited.

bcattoes

Depending on your hormones and metabolic environment, you may need to continue doing low carb to lose weight. Not everyone responds favorably to oatmeal, fruit and whole grains.

That said - whatever you decide to do, give your body time to adjust. If you're going to introduce carbs, start with low-glycemic carbs - berries, yams / sweet potatoes that will not spike your insulin.

Couldn't agree more, I recommend anyone to read "Why we get fat" or watch "Fat Head" to get a better understanding how this works and try it out. If not for weight loss but for health benefits.

Like most documentaries, "Fat Head" paints a very distorted and on-sided view of a subject. It is basically a description of gluten intollerance, and a decent one, but it portrays it as if this everyone has it, which is just 100% false. What is described in the movie does not happen to everyone.

awkwwward

Here's my two-cents: years ago, I lost about 20 pounds a month doing no card. It was easy and pretty darn yummy. The weight (and then some!) all came back. When I went mostly vegan last summer, my diet became very carb-based but GOOD carbs (fruit, carb-based veggies like corn, and a whole lot of whole grains) and I lost 20 pounds the first month and another 50 since then. This time it is staying off. No matter what the "diet" you take (calorie counting, low carb, high protein, etc.), you can lose weight on it. There isn't some magic diet formula that works so perfect for everyone - if there was, don't you think we'd be in the US without a lot of the weight troubles we have as a nation? It's all about finding what works for you, your body, your lifestyle and your future. If you love carbs but are trying low carb to lose weight, it probably isn't going to stay off because you'll go right back to the same habits when the diet is "over." Focus on trying to eat healthier long-term to keep the weight off and your body healthy. Good luck!

Acg67

also in those studies there are zero confounding factors that are not controlled for, correct?

Please make the same disclaimer about the studies you cited.

there is one that doesn't control for all confounding factors, the others are metabolic ward studies which do. you posted 0 metabolic ward studies

and back to the question i posed earlier, why doesn't Taubes promote cutting out protein or limiting it, since protein spikes insulin as well and that is supposedly why people get fat?

noneya2010

Depending on your hormones and metabolic environment, you may need to continue doing low carb to lose weight. Not everyone responds favorably to oatmeal, fruit and whole grains.

I absolutely agree. I have done a lot of research on the blood type diet (you can search and get a lot of info on the web about this) and if you read about your specific blood type, it makes complete sense. It goes back to the early days when humans were hunters and gatherers.

When I eat grains, whole wheat, and other healhy carbs, I have a lot of issues from stomach to headaches,e tc. When I focus on staying away from carbs in general like that, I feel totally different. It definately depends upon your metabolic panel, hormones, and I really think ancestorial history, possibly including blood type.

LowCarbForLife

also in those studies there are zero confounding factors that are not controlled for, correct?

Please make the same disclaimer about the studies you cited.

there is one that doesn't control for all confounding factors, the others are metabolic ward studies which do. you posted 0 metabolic ward studies

and back to the question i posed earlier, why doesn't Taubes promote cutting out protein or limiting it, since protein spikes insulin as well and that is supposedly why people get fat?

Because controlling insulin spikes is a matter of degree. The spikes as a result of high GI carbs or worse, than high GI carbs plus protein, are less than that of protein alone. There is also some evidence that insulin increases from protein coincide with increased release of glucagon.
Taubes doesn't demonize insulin, he just makes a case for naturally controlling it as much as possible.

bcattoes

also in those studies there are zero confounding factors that are not controlled for, correct?

Please make the same disclaimer about the studies you cited.

there is one that doesn't control for all confounding factors, the others are metabolic ward studies which do. you posted 0 metabolic ward studies

and back to the question i posed earlier, why doesn't Taubes promote cutting out protein or limiting it, since protein spikes insulin as well and that is supposedly why people get fat?

Because controlling insulin spikes is a matter of degree. The spikes as a result of high GI carbs or worse, than high GI carbs plus protein, are less than that of protein alone. There is also some evidence that insulin increases from protein coincide with increased release of glucagon.
Taubes doesn't demonize insulin, he just makes a case for naturally controlling it as much as possible.

If you really want to know what spikes your blood sugar you need to look at the GL instead of, or in addition to, GI (glycemic index vs glycemic load). GI doesn't give an accurate picture.

Acg67

also in those studies there are zero confounding factors that are not controlled for, correct?

Please make the same disclaimer about the studies you cited.

there is one that doesn't control for all confounding factors, the others are metabolic ward studies which do. you posted 0 metabolic ward studies

and back to the question i posed earlier, why doesn't Taubes promote cutting out protein or limiting it, since protein spikes insulin as well and that is supposedly why people get fat?

Because controlling insulin spikes is a matter of degree. The spikes as a result of high GI carbs or worse, than high GI carbs plus protein, are less than that of protein alone. There is also some evidence that insulin increases from protein coincide with increased release of glucagon.
Taubes doesn't demonize insulin, he just makes a case for naturally controlling it as much as possible.

he does demonize insulin and in fact says only CHO leads to the secretion of it. hence why he also states you can eat as much pro and fat as you want because it won't make you fat (no insulin secretion)

funkycamper

Here's my two-cents: years ago, I lost about 20 pounds a month doing no card. It was easy and pretty darn yummy. The weight (and then some!) all came back. When I went mostly vegan last summer, my diet became very carb-based but GOOD carbs (fruit, carb-based veggies like corn, and a whole lot of whole grains) and I lost 20 pounds the first month and another 50 since then. This time it is staying off. No matter what the "diet" you take (calorie counting, low carb, high protein, etc.), you can lose weight on it. There isn't some magic diet formula that works so perfect for everyone - if there was, don't you think we'd be in the US without a lot of the weight troubles we have as a nation? It's all about finding what works for you, your body, your lifestyle and your future. If you love carbs but are trying low carb to lose weight, it probably isn't going to stay off because you'll go right back to the same habits when the diet is "over." Focus on trying to eat healthier long-term to keep the weight off and your body healthy. Good luck!

Then you really did it wrong when you did low-carb. First, anytime you go on a short-term diet and go back to your old eating habits, you will gain back the weight no matter what type of program it is. Any kind of weight loss eating plan should be a lifestyle change. Second, low-carb means eating lots of vegetables if you're doing it properly. It isn't all bacon (not even mostly bacon).

While I love carbs, carbs don't love me. If I eat more than about 60 grams of carb in a day (yeah, even if they're whole grain or other whole foods like beans), not only does my blood sugar spike but I get severe heartburn. Yeah, bread gives me heartburn, go figure. And I retain water like crazy, no matter how much water I'm drinking to try to flush it out, making me ache all over and my shoes hurt.

Too much fruit does the same thing. I can eat maybe half of a small apple at a time but I must have protein with it (usually peanut butter). If I eat too much fruit, yup, heartburn.

If you're doing Atkins (I'm not), you are supposed to do induction level for about 2 weeks (20 grams carb/day) and then go into the second stage where you gradually add 5 carbs/day until you get to a level where you can't eat anymore carbs a day without having problems. These problems can be any of the ones I've mentioned above that happen to me or it could simply be getting to a level of carb intake where you are no longer losing weight. Some people can only get up to about 30-40 grams/day, some 100 or more, as we all vary. Then once you find the level at which you continue to lose 1-2 pounds per week, you stay there until you get to maintenance at which time you add a few more carbs back in until you get to the level where you maintain your weight in a healthy manner eating a variety of protein, carbs and fats.

It just really bugs when people do low-carb wrong and then blame the eating plan. Sorry for the mini rant.

LowCarbForLife

also in those studies there are zero confounding factors that are not controlled for, correct?

Please make the same disclaimer about the studies you cited.

there is one that doesn't control for all confounding factors, the others are metabolic ward studies which do. you posted 0 metabolic ward studies

and back to the question i posed earlier, why doesn't Taubes promote cutting out protein or limiting it, since protein spikes insulin as well and that is supposedly why people get fat?

Because controlling insulin spikes is a matter of degree. The spikes as a result of high GI carbs or worse, than high GI carbs plus protein, are less than that of protein alone. There is also some evidence that insulin increases from protein coincide with increased release of glucagon.
Taubes doesn't demonize insulin, he just makes a case for naturally controlling it as much as possible.

he does demonize insulin and in fact says only CHO leads to the secretion of it. hence why he also states you can eat as much pro and fat as you want because it won't make you fat (no insulin secretion)

I will let Taubes himself respond to your criticism stating essentially what I stated earlier. The insulin response to protein is only one-third that of CHO.

http://www.livinlowcarbdiscussion.com/showthread.php?tid=2471&pid=58168#pid58168

Taubes himself argues his book was an attempt to review the prevailing wisdom on the cause of obesity and then to propose a new alternative *hypothesis* which should be then tested. I believe that underlying his statement on eating as much protein as you want is the implication that eating protein is self-limiting when you do it in the absence of carbohydrate.

ktsdad

I am currently on MF, but thinking about doing something like you. In reality the MF plan does this too, in the transition phase. What you need to do is slowly put carbs in using fruits and whole grains. I think everyone can agree these are better than white bread and french fries.

From what I've read, most of the rapid weight gain after stopping a low carb diet comes from your body restoring it's glycogen stores around the liver and such (the 'water weight' you lost in the first week). If you are keeping your calories the same, you should top out after you gain your first week's losses back and then start losing again.

For me, I am insulin resistant/ pre-diabetic, whatever you want to call it. I can't do anything white or processed and lose weight. I have been tracking my balance, and I am eating about 45% protein, 30% carbs, and 25% fat per day. My total carbs vary between 80g and 100g per day. This is technically not 'low carb', but it is on the bubble.

For me, I have to log everything I eat using MFP, analyze it and relearn how to eat. The weight loss is just the beginning. I have to learn what types of food my body can handle, and what I need to stay away from.

Try not to think low vs high carb, just try to find a balance that works for you. You have the rest of your life to work on it.