Low Calories, or Low Carbs? What is better.....

bcattoes

I certainly wouldn't be able to say what schools, but it sure seems like that is the stance that is taken by doctors (at least everyone that I have met so far), nurses, certain other groups like the American Heart Association, the media, just about everybody (though it is slowly turning around) preaches a low fat diet as the secret to weightloss, health and longevity.

The last time I had a nurse who had to be at least 350lbs tell me that I had to lay off low carb and fats or I'd get sick and fat, and potentially die I stopped listening to anything that most doctors that cling to conventional wisdom say.

Most doctors will say to reduce fats if you want to lose weight, because fats have the most calories. But for health most recommend low saturated fat, no trans fat and moderate non-saturated fats. And if you go to medical university web sites that provide nutritional advice, this is also what you'll likely see. The media is another story, but how silly is it to listen to the media for nutrition advice?

11Jayme11

I personally cannot do a low/no carb diet... I crave carbs SO BAD... more so than sweets! I do low calorie and love it that way!

LPS1986

Unless you are diabetic (or at risk for it), I do not see the reason to cut carbs out of your diet. I struggle to eat calories because, as a diabetic, I eat no more then 160 grams of carbs a day (and that is a lot in comparison to low-carb diets). I eat much less if I do not workout because I do need some carbs to thrive. I also hear that if you completely cut carbs you'll gain it right back. As many have said before, it is all about calories in and calories out. I still lose weight and I eat over 100g of carbs a day. It is all about healthy balance, energizing your body and exercise.

bcattoes

So, what did the other people eat? Seriously. That was the first thing that popped in my head.

If the other people were eating either no bread, then you may have a point.

If the other people were eating non-whole grain breads like white bread, you have only succeeded in showing that whole-grain is healthier than non-whole grains.

There were hundreds of thousands of participants in the studies. In at least some of the studies they were not told what to eat. I'm sure some ate white bread, some ate high sugar, some ate low fat, some at high fat, and some ate low carb. But, overall, the ones that ate more whole grains were healthier. Take from that what you will. To me it indicates whole grains are good for me. Plus the fact that I switched to whole grains more than 20 years ago and have made it to age 50 with no meds and no diseases.

**I also listened to other medical recommendations like eating less saturated fat and more nonsaturated fats, eating a variety of vegetables, not overeating and getting regular exercise (most of the time). I'm not suggesting that whole grains are a miracle food.

jenng38

Okay...I am 40 years old and have been overweight my entire life. I have tried diet after diet...low fat, calorie counting, weight watchers, slim fast- you name it I have tried it. I even tried the south beach diet but could not handle the strict phase. Then I had some scary bloodwork numbers. My fasting blood sugar was high. My Dr. said you need to follow a low carb diet or you are going to be diabetic. But she insisted that I still eat fruit and whole grains. So what I did was I eliminated all processed white carbs and severely limited my intake of total carbs to about 75-80g per day. No potatoes no white bread or potato chips...you get the idea. When I did this the weight literally started falling off! (of course the holidays hit and I took a 3 month "break" from this diet and promptly put about 15 back on, so I know that I need to follow this plan for the rest of my life) I guess my point is, everyone's body responds differently to different approaches. For me, not having potatoes and white pasta is worth avoiding diabetes and getting to a healthy weight. But if you lose weight regardless of which approach you follow, I say do whatever makes you the happiest I will say that when I control my carbs, I sometimes find it challenging just to get to my minimum of 1200 per day! hope this helps
Jenn

Marll

I lost A LOT of weight on a low carb diet a couple years ago, but as soon as I started eating breads, pastas, etc. I gained it back quickly plus a few. I recommend low calorie because it's more of a lifestyle and not a 'diet'.

Again with the theme of "when I went back to my old ways, which made me gain weight in the first place". Low carb is a lifestyle as well, just like the people that call calorie restriction or low fat, why is this such a hard concept? Low carb has NEVER presented itself in any form that I am aware of as a quick fix, but lasting changes that you have to make. As mentioned before in the thread you don't tell an alcoholic to introduce drinking into their daily life again, or give a junky a needle with "just a little bit" of heroin, it just doesn't work

Throughout the thread most of the "Low carbs diets don't work/are a disaster" posts always have a line similar to "It was a disaster, besides I LOVE my bread/oatmeal/(insert other carb-y delight). It's not that the diet is a disaster, it's that you are not willing to let go of your currently pleasureable foods. I see the type every day in the lunchroom at work, drooling while I fix my lunch of well marbled fatty steaks, vegtables and tons of butter while munching on rice cakes wondering why they gained weight last year and I lost about 60lbs, short of my goal but respectable.

Mrydman

'Why We Get Fat" is a GREAT BOOK!

funkycamper

So, what did the other people eat? Seriously. That was the first thing that popped in my head.

If the other people were eating either no bread, then you may have a point.

If the other people were eating non-whole grain breads like white bread, you have only succeeded in showing that whole-grain is healthier than non-whole grains.

There were hundreds of thousands of participants in the studies. In at least some of the studies they were not told what to eat. I'm sure some ate white bread, some ate high sugar, some ate low fat, some at high fat, and some ate low carb. But, overall, the ones that ate more whole grains were healthier. Take from that what you will. To me it indicates whole grains are good for me. Plus the fact that I switched to whole grains more than 20 years ago and have made it to age 50 with no meds and no diseases.

**I also listened to other medical recommendations like eating less saturated fat and more nonsaturated fats, eating a variety of vegetables, not overeating and getting regular exercise (most of the time). I'm not suggesting that whole grains are a miracle food.

Maybe. I think there are a lot of ways to extrapolate data and that researchers are human and will often look for information that supports their preconceived notions and ignore other data that doesn't.

No matter as I'm more concerned with what works for me and all my lab tests like HDL, LDL, etc., have improved since lowering my carb intake. So, as I've said numerous times, I know it works for me. YMMV.

bcattoes

So, what did the other people eat? Seriously. That was the first thing that popped in my head.

If the other people were eating either no bread, then you may have a point.

If the other people were eating non-whole grain breads like white bread, you have only succeeded in showing that whole-grain is healthier than non-whole grains.

There were hundreds of thousands of participants in the studies. In at least some of the studies they were not told what to eat. I'm sure some ate white bread, some ate high sugar, some ate low fat, some at high fat, and some ate low carb. But, overall, the ones that ate more whole grains were healthier. Take from that what you will. To me it indicates whole grains are good for me. Plus the fact that I switched to whole grains more than 20 years ago and have made it to age 50 with no meds and no diseases.

**I also listened to other medical recommendations like eating less saturated fat and more nonsaturated fats, eating a variety of vegetables, not overeating and getting regular exercise (most of the time). I'm not suggesting that whole grains are a miracle food.

Maybe. I think there are a lot of ways to extrapolate data and that researchers are human and will often look for information that supports their preconceived notions and ignore other data that doesn't.

No matter as I'm more concerned with what works for me and all my lab tests like HDL, LDL, etc., have improved since lowering my carb intake. So, as I've said numerous times, I know it works for me. YMMV.

I completely agree with the second paragraph. What works for most may not work for you. When you find something that works for you, you would be crazy not to stick with it. That's why I never poo-poo low carb, only the notion that it is the only or best way. There is no only way, and the best way is an individual thing.

I don't agree as much with the first. Researchers are humans so certainly some are biased, and if they are trying to sell a book on a subject I think they are more likely to be biased. But others who really just want to learn about nutrition have no reason to be biased. I like to read "we were surprised by these results" occasionally for that very reason.

funkycamper

So, what did the other people eat? Seriously. That was the first thing that popped in my head.

If the other people were eating either no bread, then you may have a point.

If the other people were eating non-whole grain breads like white bread, you have only succeeded in showing that whole-grain is healthier than non-whole grains.

There were hundreds of thousands of participants in the studies. In at least some of the studies they were not told what to eat. I'm sure some ate white bread, some ate high sugar, some ate low fat, some at high fat, and some ate low carb. But, overall, the ones that ate more whole grains were healthier. Take from that what you will. To me it indicates whole grains are good for me. Plus the fact that I switched to whole grains more than 20 years ago and have made it to age 50 with no meds and no diseases.

**I also listened to other medical recommendations like eating less saturated fat and more nonsaturated fats, eating a variety of vegetables, not overeating and getting regular exercise (most of the time). I'm not suggesting that whole grains are a miracle food.

Maybe. I think there are a lot of ways to extrapolate data and that researchers are human and will often look for information that supports their preconceived notions and ignore other data that doesn't.

No matter as I'm more concerned with what works for me and all my lab tests like HDL, LDL, etc., have improved since lowering my carb intake. So, as I've said numerous times, I know it works for me. YMMV.

I completely agree with the second paragraph. What works for most may not work for you. When you find something that works for you, you would be crazy not to stick with it. That's why I never poo-poo low carb, only the notion that it is the only or best way. There is no only way, and the best way is an individual thing.

I don't agree as much with the first. Researchers are humans so certainly some are biased, and if they are trying to sell a book on a subject I think they are more likely to be biased. But others who really just want to learn about nutrition have no reason to be biased. I like to read "we were surprised by these results" occasionally for that very reason.

Fair enough. I totally agree that there is no one size fits all method. I disagree with zealots who promote any eating plan as the answer for everyone.

As for the second, I've seen enough studies yield conflicting results and different people/groups reviewing the same data coming up with different conclusions that I tend to take most studies with a grain of salt. Not talking just weight-loss related ones but in many arenas. I'm not saying they don't have value but I just don't get really hung up on them.

bcattoes

As for the second, I've seen enough studies yield conflicting results and different people/groups reviewing the same data coming up with different conclusions that I tend to take most studies with a grain of salt. Not talking just weight-loss related ones but in many arenas. I'm not saying they don't have value but I just don't get really hung up on them.

Oh, I completely agree with this. I only provided the studies above because I was asked for them. There are conflicting studies out there. And there were many study participants that didn't fall in to the "most" category.

It's like when people say XXX study showed that most people don't stick to low carb diets long term as if that proves it's a bad diet. They seem to miss the point that XXX study did not show that zero people could stick to it long term.

pedramf77

If your energy output is the same then it doesn't matter if you go lower calories with the same carb to fat to protein ratio or lower calorie with lower carb ratio. No one here will say thay lowering calorie input to below your calorie output is not the ONLY way to lose weight.

Reality is that high carb ratio with low calories will make you less active and more sedentary. This will make you burn less per day unless you are mr. Willpower. Some of you are. Great for you.

Plus the added pain of losing as much muscle as fat on a high carb low calorie diet which in turn lowers you metabolism.

You do lose some water weight the first week on a low carb diet. So the baseline should not be taken for your starting weight until week two. Also assume the same amount of weight lost in week one from water will come back when your off of the diet. And you might feel a little fatigue the first week. But I found steady energy after that.

A few years ago I wanted to go into the military and needed to lose 30 pounds but not lose strength. Took 3 months and I did regain 5 lbs of water weight afterwards. But I did not lose muscle mass and I lost more fat than I would have by only watching calories alone.

No matter what though you HAVE to watch calories.

emisu2

Low carbs, all day long.

MarkAWhipple

I agree with Mrscarrey but only because her ticker is the only one which mentions BACON. Mmmmm, bacon...

amandamariaduff

Everybody is different. What works for one might not work for another. For me, low carb works really well, and I like it. Find what works for you and what makes you feel better.

AlabasterVerve

Low carb, high fat, real food is working for me and it's the best I've felt in years. I can not describe how freeing it is to have a normal appetite instead of spending all day planing snacks in an attempt to keep my appetite under control.

houzemuzik

Personally, I believe in low-carb AND low cal.
Here's why:

BOTH, Calories AND Carbs are sources/units of energy!
ENERGY is stored as fat if not used up, so obviously you want to watch your intake of both. NOT just one or the other!
One can get fat from too many calories PERIOD, whether it comes from excess fat, carbs, OR protein.
Plain and simple, a caloric surplus makes one fat, no matter what macro nutrient it comes from.

If you stop consuming carbs (or consume a VERY low amount of it) you will eventually put your body into a state of Ketosis when your Glycogen stores are burned up. By being in Ketosis AND ALSO in a caloric deficit your body will have no choice but to burn it's fat as energy.
That's the most efficient way of losing FAT.

It makes me laugh at how people talk about losing "weight".
What kind of weight are we discussing? You have: water weight, muscle weight, bone weight, FAT!
People don't want to lose "weight" (it's too broad a term), we want to lose FAT, nobody wants to lose muscle as we also lose strength when doing so!

Another thing that makes me laugh is how people talk about how low carb diets are "no good due to the fact that people gain back the weight when they re-introduce carbs back in".
First off, why is that, and what kind of weight is it they regain?
Is it water weight?
A good portion of it will be, that is to be expected because Glycogen stores require water!!
Read: http://www.justinowings.com/understanding-bodyweight-and-glycogen-de/
Nothing wrong with the water weight, our bodies need water.
Also, are they gaining fat again or are they gaining muscle?
If you "quit" dieting and go back to eating where you're now in a caloric surplus of course you'll gain weight!
If you're not active/exercising, of course you'll put on fat!

Now to those that talk about losing weight on low cal diets, how much of that weight was muscle?
I honestly think using our bodies Ketogenic state is beneficial for burning fat, and for BaZnGa who discusses that other nutrients can be broken down for the use of energy such as protein, yes that can happen, BUT, one's body will first turn to it's fat stores first, after all, that's where it's energy was first stored, therefore it would make sense that it would just reconvert that fat wouldn't it?

If one is doing resistance (weight) training that protein will be synthesized for muscle growth instead, esp if one knows what they're doing and is supplementing properly (Glutamine, BCAA's, Creatine, Multivitamin, Omega 3, etc).

Also, weight training for maintaining muscles (if not building them) and burning fat instead is VERY important, as our strength relies on our muscles.
The more muscular we are the more calories we burn as well so it's a win-win!

squatsandlipgloss

I absolutely believe low carb is automatically low calories. So you don't lose weight because you're low carb, you lose weight because you don't go over your calories.

When I was doing low carb a few years back I lost 25 lbs, but that's because I got so sick of eating so much fat and protein (you can only eat so much bacon...), I could hardly get over 1,200 cals a day.

And I remember on the low carb message board I was part of for a year, people would say "it's not about the calories. I consume close to 2,500 calories and I still lose weight." ....... Goes to show a lot of people don't understand calories in/calories out.

tigersword

Personally, I believe in low-carb AND low cal.
Here's why:

BOTH, Calories AND Carbs are sources/units of energy!
ENERGY is stored as fat if not used up, so obviously you want to watch your intake of both. NOT just one or the other!
One can get fat from too many calories PERIOD, whether it comes from excess fat, carbs, OR protein.
Plain and simple, a caloric surplus makes one fat, no matter what macro nutrient it comes from.

If you stop consuming carbs (or consume a VERY low amount of it) you will eventually put your body into a state of Ketosis when your Glycogen stores are burned up. By being in Ketosis AND ALSO in a caloric deficit your body will have no choice but to burn it's fat as energy.
That's the most efficient way of losing FAT.

It makes me laugh at how people talk about losing "weight".
What kind of weight are we discussing? You have: water weight, muscle weight, bone weight, FAT!
People don't want to lose "weight" (it's too broad a term), we want to lose FAT, nobody wants to lose muscle as we also lose strength when doing so!

Another thing that makes me laugh is how people talk about how low carb diets are "no good due to the fact that people gain back the weight when they re-introduce carbs back in".
First off, why is that, and what kind of weight is it they regain?
Is it water weight?
A good portion of it will be, that is to be expected because Glycogen stores require water!!
Read: http://www.justinowings.com/understanding-bodyweight-and-glycogen-de/
Nothing wrong with the water weight, our bodies need water.
Also, are they gaining fat again or are they gaining muscle?
If you "quit" dieting and go back to eating where you're now in a caloric surplus of course you'll gain weight!
If you're not active/exercising, of course you'll put on fat!

Now to those that talk about losing weight on low cal diets, how much of that weight was muscle?
I honestly think using our bodies Ketogenic state is beneficial for burning fat, and for BaZnGa who discusses that other nutrients can be broken down for the use of energy such as protein, yes that can happen, BUT, one's body will first turn to it's fat stores first, after all, that's where it's energy was first stored, therefore it would make sense that it would just reconvert that fat wouldn't it?

If one is doing resistance (weight) training that protein will be synthesized for muscle growth instead, esp if one knows what they're doing and is supplementing properly (Glutamine, BCAA's, Creatine, Multivitamin, Omega 3, etc).

Also, weight training for maintaining muscles (if not building them) and burning fat instead is VERY important, as our strength relies on our muscles.
The more muscular we are the more calories we burn as well so it's a win-win!

Huge flaw to this mode of thinking. Fat is burned most efficiently when it can be burned along with glycogen. Ketosis is actually an incredibly inefficient way to burn fat. Your body would spend plenty of time catabolizing muscle in order to convert the protein into glucose, to create glycogen for the fat burning process, which can lead to significant lean mass loss. The human body wants to conserve as much fat as possible, and burn as little as possible at a time, which is why it reaches optimal efficiency when you maintain a decent amount of glycogen (for one thing, fat burning is incredibly slow compared to glycogen, and fat alone would never be able to keep up with intense demand.) So, you end up with muscle catabolism, and most of the protein you consume being converted to glycogen to maintain demand, in essence, spinning your wheels.

This is why there are very few professional athletes, powerlifters, and bodybuilders that eat low carb for more than a few weeks at a time (generally for a body builder, right before competition, to facilitate dehydration to allow muscles to appear more defined, for other athletes, it's usually to facilitate dehydration in order to make weight, then they load up on carbs right after the official weigh in.) It's just an incredibly inefficient way of going about it.

mamosh81

i read somewhere that it dosnt matter if you go on a low carb or low fat diet the results are pretty much the same but the low fat group they did the studie on lost more muscle tissue then the low carb group but like i said the weight loss was the same so go with what ever you feel better with its the calorie intake that counts.

i am on a low carb diet for a month now and loving it, but i also have insulin resistent pcos

vkw1

I need to eat carbs to feel fuller/satisifed.Oats for brekky means for example I do not always need a midmorning snack and I often have raisin toast for breakfast which does the same.If I eat protein(eggs etc) for brekky I am starving by 10 am and I dont usually eat early( about 8- 8.30 am).Everyone is different but I believe you need to eat a balanced diet and not cut out a whole food group

albertabeefy

And I remember on the low carb message board I was part of for a year, people would say "it's not about the calories. I consume close to 2,500 calories and I still lose weight." ....... Goes to show a lot of people don't understand calories in/calories out.

If you're 300lbs you CAN eat 2,500 calories and still lose weight, though

But you're correct - calories-in/out MATTER. There IS a thermogenic effect to food, but it's just NOT that much. I've been on a low-carb ketogenic diet for over two years and I count my carbs/calories EVERY single day.

I have no doubt that I would not have the successes I have (not just in weight-loss, but in muscle-building) without counting carbs.

There is also a large group that say exercise on a low-carb diet isn't important. They quote Taubes who states something similar - but he mentions WALKING as the exercise. Let's be honest - we're VERY biomechanically efficient at walking and it simply will never burn as much calories as jogging, an elliptical, HIIT, strength-training, etc.

Exercise is important to creating that increased TDEE so important to weight loss.

albertabeefy

Huge flaw to this mode of thinking. Fat is burned most efficiently when it can be burned along with glycogen. Ketosis is actually an incredibly inefficient way to burn fat. Your body would spend plenty of time catabolizing muscle in order to convert the protein into glucose, to create glycogen for the fat burning process, which can lead to significant lean mass loss. The human body wants to conserve as much fat as possible, and burn as little as possible at a time, which is why it reaches optimal efficiency when you maintain a decent amount of glycogen (for one thing, fat burning is incredibly slow compared to glycogen, and fat alone would never be able to keep up with intense demand.) So, you end up with muscle catabolism, and most of the protein you consume being converted to glycogen to maintain demand, in essence, spinning your wheels.

[/quote]
None of this is accurate. None of reflects what actually happens in biochemistry.

1) keto-adaptation is the most efficient way to oxidize fatty-acids for ATP production, as our metabolism completely shifts to utilize fat for ATP generation for cellular respiration instead of glucose.

2) your body does not catabolize more lean-tissue, in-fact studies universally slow ketogenic diets preserve lean-muscle tissue far-better than any other.

3) glycogen is not required for the 'fat-burning' process in the keto-adapted individual. Glycogen is used for 'fat-burning' process in NON keto-adapted individuals only.

Basically everything you said has no basis in any science, and goes against every study of ketogenic dieters and athletes ever performed.

Acg67

Huge flaw to this mode of thinking. Fat is burned most efficiently when it can be burned along with glycogen. Ketosis is actually an incredibly inefficient way to burn fat. Your body would spend plenty of time catabolizing muscle in order to convert the protein into glucose, to create glycogen for the fat burning process, which can lead to significant lean mass loss. The human body wants to conserve as much fat as possible, and burn as little as possible at a time, which is why it reaches optimal efficiency when you maintain a decent amount of glycogen (for one thing, fat burning is incredibly slow compared to glycogen, and fat alone would never be able to keep up with intense demand.) So, you end up with muscle catabolism, and most of the protein you consume being converted to glycogen to maintain demand, in essence, spinning your wheels.

None of this is accurate. None of reflects what actually happens in biochemistry.

1) keto-adaptation is the most efficient way to oxidize fatty-acids for ATP production, as our metabolism completely shifts to utilize fat for ATP generation for cellular respiration instead of glucose.

2) your body does not catabolize more lean-tissue, in-fact studies universally slow ketogenic diets preserve lean-muscle tissue far-better than any other.

3) glycogen is not required for the 'fat-burning' process in the keto-adapted individual. Glycogen is used for 'fat-burning' process in NON keto-adapted individuals only.

Basically everything you said has no basis in any science, and goes against every study of ketogenic dieters and athletes ever performed.
[/quote]

Lol

1) Then we should see significantly more fat loss for low carb/keto diets when protein and cals are held constant, yet the vast majority of tightly controlled studies do not show that, with Rabst, Kekwick and one or two others that show significantly greater fat loss for low carb/keto

2) Not universal, depending on the protein content of the diet, keto and low carb have been shown to be inferior

albertabeefy

First, the information I presented is both straight from any modern biochemistry textbook and can also be found clearly outlined in Volek/Phinney's "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance" and Lyle McDonald's "The Ketogenic Diet"

If you can, using science, debunk anything they've written, please be my guest.

Lol

1) Then we should see significantly more fat loss for low carb/keto diets when protein and cals are held constant, yet the vast majority of tightly controlled studies do not show that, with Rabst, Kekwick and one or two others that show significantly greater fat loss for low carb/keto

The Kekwick study that I can find is 55 years old has has major flaws (small # of test subjects, short length 12-23 days depending on subject, etc.) but shows that those administered the high-fat/low-carb diet lost weight more-rapidly than the other diets, which is opposite of what you state.

I cannot find a Rabst study on ketogenic diets - do you have a link?

I can, however provide over a dozen studies showing VLCKD superior in several ways (weight-loss, lean-mass-retention, insulin-sensitivity, glycemic control, lipid profile, triglycerides) and will include all titles of the studies below.

2) Not universal, depending on the protein content of the diet, keto and low carb have been shown to be inferior

A low-carb ketogenic diet for diabetes is generally accepted to have a protein content of no more that 25%. The ratio is commonly considered 65/30/5 or 70/25/5 of fat/protein/carbohydrate. That's not a lot of variance. Do you have examples to support your claims?

Other than Phinney/Volek's "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance" and Lyle McDonald's "The Ketogenic Diet", I also have these studies:

"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"

"A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity"

"A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet to treat type 2 diabetes"

"Comparison of a High-Carbohydrate Diet with a High-Monounsaturated-Fat Diet in Patients with Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus"

"The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus"

"Effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet program compared to a low-fat diet on fasting lipoprotein subclasses"

"Comparison of Low Fat and Low Carbohydrate Diets on Circulating Fatty Acid Composition and Markers of Inflammation"

"Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women"

"Lasting Improvement of Hyperglycaemia and Bodyweight: Low-carbohydrate Diet in Type 2 Diabetes. – A Brief Report"

"A Pilot Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes"

"A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity"

"Low-carbohydrate diets: an update on current research"

"Efficacy of low-carbohydrate diet in the treatment of obesity in adolescents"

"A ketogenic diet favorably affects serum biomarkers for cardiovascular disease in normal-weight men"

Acg67

The Kekwick study that I can find is 55 years old has has major flaws (small # of test subjects, short length 12-23 days depending on subject, etc.) but shows that those administered the high-fat/low-carb diet lost weight more-rapidly than the other diets, which is opposite of what you state.

Which is exactly what stated, that is one of the few studies that do show that in well controlled trials

I can, however provide over a dozen studies showing VLCKD superior in several ways (weight-loss, lean-mass-retention, insulin-sensitivity, glycemic control, lipid profile, triglycerides) and will include all titles of the studies below.

I take it you didn't actually read any of them and just copy pasted from somewhere?

"However, similar to body weight, fat mass and lean body mass decreased significantly more in the very low carbohydrate group[b/] compared with the low fat group at both 3 and 6 months"

From your first study

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long

Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/figure/F1/

Which diet looks better for lbm retention?

And looking through the full studies that I could find, many relied on self reported intake and didn't control for cals or protein intake. So you didn't actually post anything to show they universally show better lbm retention nor fat loss when cals and protein is held constant In fact some of the studies you did post, showed the exact opposite in regards to lbm retention, which is what i said

mrjefflevy

I have lost weight and gained weight my entire life on low carb diets. All the way up to 375 lbs. Lost a couple hundred pounds over a 25 year period never really getting to an ideal weight and always gaining it back. Lost weight and enjoyed low carb true Aitkins the best no carb then low carb 20 or less a day. Then I decided to get serious. at 375 started a weight and excercise regime primalily vegitables and very low fat foods. NO Comercial low fat foods. 1200 cals a day excercise and what I cal deprivation. I have found without deprivation I can not lose weight on a low cal diet. but in one years time I lost 125lbs on depravatin low calorie and excercise. I went off for several months gained 20lbs now back on 800 to 1100 calories a day for 5 weeks with excercise. I have lost the 20 plus 8 more. Now I am going to california for a vacation and I really feel if I switched to low carb for a month it would be so much easier to vacation and still diet. Does anyone here know if this would be a good idea or a bad one. Please help. BTW I have been drinking one VI-Shape Visalas shake a day just for vitamins and nutrients. Please help me with this dicission as I am not sure if I should do this for a month and then go back to low calorie for the next 6 months to get the last 50 lbs off.

Thank you for any help from this awesome forum.

Mr Jeff Levy

Oceanborn2

Hey guys, I stumbled upon an article that I want your opinion on, especially acg67. I hope he's still around

http://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/whats-the-best-diet-for-losing-fat

Currently I'm trying to lose some fat and I'm doing a traditional low calorie diet. The weight on the scale hasn't changed very much so far. In fact it's fluctuating more heavily than usual. I was down 2lbs from where I started and now I'm up 5 from being down 2, ha!

I can tell that I'm gaining LBM, even with a deficit (because I'm new?), but I don't think too much fat is coming off of me. It might be and I'm just not noticing it, but that's why I find this article interesting.

tigersword

It cited a study that failed to control for calories or protein. The higher carb group ate about 2000 calories with a margin of error of over 400 calories. That means some (presumably the one that gained both LBM and fat) were eating around 2400 calories a day.

So is it the reduction in carbs, or the reduction in calories plus the increase in protein that made the difference? Honestly, pretty poor article.

In your case, I'm betting it's water retention.

abickford82

Depends. For me when I didn't exercise, Lower carb (not low) worked for me. I have a daily expenditure of 3000 to 3900 daily because I'm very active, and living on low cal/low carb just doesn't cut it anymore. You have to see what works for you. If you're only walking for 30 minutes to 1 hour daily and sedentary the rest of the day I'm sure you'd do just fine on an atkins style/1400 calorie "diet".