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

grinch031

Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories. I'm finding that my body does best when I have 150g of carbs a day or less which is low in comparison to what I was clocking before (250+), but is not at all low by low carb dieting standards.

I still feel like I have plenty of energy, and I still get to have the bread, etc that I LOVE. What's more, I usually end up with 1500 or less calories for the day (my goal is 1590). It's a win win so far as I'm concerned.

Not everyone is sensitive to carbs as you can see on a daily basis, but Taubes' case is that the majority of those who are obese do have some sensitivity.

Anyways my belief is that any time your body results in a caloric surplus while eating in a pattern that comes natural to you on a normal day (without manually manipulating the number of calories you ingest), then there is an imbalance in the ratio of ingested macro-nutrients that is not optimal for your particular body. My belief is that the most likely cause is excessive carbohydrates since they are the least essential nutrient to health, and seem to be the least satiating, or even cause more hunger in some people.

So now matter what your diet looks like in percentages or total calories, if it allows you to naturally eat such that your body can regulate weight properly, then your diet is a success. However if you choose to manipulate calories and you are always battling hunger, even short term success will eventually turn into long term failure.

That is what the low-carb diet is all about.

mrsdizzyd84

Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories.

This idea isn't very intuitive, which is why I don't believe in the theory that low-carb diets are "calorie-restrictive diets in disguise". If in fact overeating is a psychological condition as most mainstream dieticians believe (why else would you treat it with a psychological solution of manual caloric restriction?), then why wouldn't the person simply replace the lack of carbs with fat or protein? This is especially curious because they say fat is bad because its calorie dense (9 calories/gram as opposed to 4 calories/gram for carbs), so why wouldn't we eat MORE calories by substituting fat for carbs? Again we are psychologically driven to overeat right due to our toxic culture?

Umm, I'm speaking as someone who is on MFP to watch my caloric intake and my nutrients. Of course I'm not going to replace the carbs with too much fat or protein and thus overeat. The OP is also here and presumably using the MFP software?

I can't speak for anyone who is not actively using MFP or otherwise tracking their calories and nutrient levels. I know plenty of fat vegans and vegetarians as well as plenty of fat folks who mostly eat meat. If overeating is your issue that's something else entirely outside of using MFP to your aadvantage.

We are here on MFP and presumably we are using the MFP macros or adjusting them ourselves. Depending on your goal MFP is automatically going to reduce your carbs, fat, and protein to met that goal. You can then go in and customize that further by increasing or decreasing your carbs, fat, and/or protein. No matter what, MFP is going to balance the three out to 100% so that you can still meet your calorie restriction. So, overeating isn't an issue unless you totally disregard MFP's recommendations. In that case, one must ask oneself why one is even using MFP.

grinch031

Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories.

This idea isn't very intuitive, which is why I don't believe in the theory that low-carb diets are "calorie-restrictive diets in disguise". If in fact overeating is a psychological condition as most mainstream dieticians believe (why else would you treat it with a psychological solution of manual caloric restriction?), then why wouldn't the person simply replace the lack of carbs with fat or protein? This is especially curious because they say fat is bad because its calorie dense (9 calories/gram as opposed to 4 calories/gram for carbs), so why wouldn't we eat MORE calories by substituting fat for carbs? Again we are psychologically driven to overeat right due to our toxic culture?

Umm, I'm speaking as someone who is on MFP to watch my caloric intake and my nutrients. Of course I'm not going to replace the carbs with too much fat or protein and thus overeat. The OP is also here and presumably using the MFP software?

I can't speak for anyone who is not actively using MFP or otherwise tracking their calories and nutrient levels. I know plenty of fat vegans and vegetarians as well as plenty of fat folks who mostly eat meat. If overeating is your issue that's something else entirely outside of using MFP to your aadvantage.

We are here on MFP and presumably we are using the MFP macros or adjusting them ourselves. Depending on your goal MFP is automatically going to reduce your carbs, fat, and protein to met that goal. You can then go in and customize that further by increasing or decreasing your carbs, fat, and/or protein. No matter what, MFP is going to balance the three out to 100% so that you can still meet your calorie restriction. So, overeating isn't an issue unless you totally disregard MFP's recommendations. In that case, one must ask oneself why one is even using MFP.

MFP doesn't require anybody to track their food intake or restrict their calories. They might come here strictly for tracking exercise. They might come here (like me) strictly for the forums.

With that being said, it is generally not required or encouraged to restrict calories on a low-carb diet, so the context of my argument was that it is unintuitive that one would automatically reduce caloric intake by simply cutting carbs. Because a psychologically weak-willed person would simply replace the missing carbs with some other nutrient such as fat.

RonSwanson66

With that being said, it is generally not required or encouraged to restrict calories on a low-carb diet,

Of course it is, if you hope to lose weight.

Once more for the slow kids

YOU WILL NOT LOSE FAT WITHOUT A CALORIC DEFICIT !!!!!!!!

EVERYONE who loses fat on a low-carb diet does so through caloric restriction --- whether they count calories or not.

mrsdizzyd84

Grinch,

Well then, my dear, you and I are talking about two completely different situations and thus can't really have a debate or discussion of any real substance without talking over and past each other rather than to each other.

I'm here using the MFP software to my advantage, and in that context cutting carbs is going to lead to a lower caloric intake. In this context it is very much so intuitive. I cannot speak for someone who is not doing the same.

Good luck in your endeavors, whatever they may be.

kitchnwitch

tofu noodles are a nice alternative to rice noodles. they taste really good and there is only 3 carbs in 8 oz. Trust me and I don't like tofu

grinch031

Well then, my dear, you and I are talking about two completely different situations and thus can't really have a debate or discussion of any real substance without talking over and past each other rather than to each other.

I'm here using the MFP software to my advantage, and in that context cutting carbs is going to lead to a lower caloric intake. In this context it is very much so intuitive. I cannot speak for someone who is not doing the same.

Good luck in your endeavors, whatever they may be.

yes I'm aware of that, but only after you clarified that. I can't assume that every discussion anyone has on this board is ALWAYS within the context of a manual restriction on calories, especially when its discussions over diet theory.

kitchnwitch

I am a carb dieter. I find that if I am counting calories I feel deprived and I always feel hungry. but with carbs I am not. I am definately addicted to carbs so I really need to stay away from them. In saying that I believe the South Beach Diet is the best of both worlds . its alot healthier

mrsdizzyd84

Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories. I'm finding that my body does best when I have 150g of carbs a day or less which is low in comparison to what I was clocking before (250+), but is not at all low by low carb dieting standards.

I still feel like I have plenty of energy, and I still get to have the bread, etc that I LOVE. What's more, I usually end up with 1500 or less calories for the day (my goal is 1590). It's a win win so far as I'm concerned.

Not everyone is sensitive to carbs as you can see on a daily basis, but Taubes' case is that the majority of those who are obese do have some sensitivity.

It's amazing how much I couldn't care less about what Taubes has to say. He sounds like a self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectual bigot to me, and I get enough exposure to those types in my day to day.

I'm happy to continue down my path of moderation, which is working out very well for me. I'll be at the goal weight in June, and do not anticipate any issues continuing what I'm doing since I am depriving myself of nothing. I don't need a guru or a philosophy for that.

grinch031

With that being said, it is generally not required or encouraged to restrict calories on a low-carb diet,

Of course it is, if you hope to lose weight.

You seem to be uneducated about low-carb diets then so your ignorance is starting to make sense to me. The Atkins plan, probably the most well known low-carb diet does not require calorie restriction. Atkins usually leads to significant weight loss.

YOU WILL NOT LOSE FAT WITHOUT A CALORIC DEFICIT !!!!!!!!

I actually thought you were smarter than this despite your massive flaws in character. You clearly did not comprehend anything I've been saying. You are stating the obvious that nobody denies. It is true just like bank account balances grow when deposits exceed withdraws, fat is lost when calories OUT exceeds calories IN.

Low carb diets operate under the premise that both Calories IN and Calories OUT are regulated by the body, and that the right balance of nutrients (particularly less carbs) will allow the body to create a caloric deficit without manual manipulation.

grinch031

Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories. I'm finding that my body does best when I have 150g of carbs a day or less which is low in comparison to what I was clocking before (250+), but is not at all low by low carb dieting standards.

I still feel like I have plenty of energy, and I still get to have the bread, etc that I LOVE. What's more, I usually end up with 1500 or less calories for the day (my goal is 1590). It's a win win so far as I'm concerned.

Not everyone is sensitive to carbs as you can see on a daily basis, but Taubes' case is that the majority of those who are obese do have some sensitivity.

It's amazing how much I couldn't care less about what Taubes has to say. He sounds like a self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectual bigot to me, and I get enough exposure to those types in my day to day.

I'm happy to continue down my path of moderation, which is working out very well for me. I'll be at the goal weight in June, and do not anticipate any issues continuing what I'm doing since I am depriving myself of nothing. I don't need a guru or a philosophy for that.

What you describe Taubes as also describes most of his critics pretty well. I'm not criticizing your choice of diet, other than to say your choice of diet would fail miserably for anyone who is highly sensitive to carbs and that is why they listen to people like Taubes.

RonSwanson66

With that being said, it is generally not required or encouraged to restrict calories on a low-carb diet,

Of course it is, if you hope to lose weight.

You seem to be uneducated about low-carb diets then so your ignorance is starting to make sense to me. The Atkins plan, probably the most well known low-carb diet does not require calorie restriction. Atkins usually leads to significant weight loss.

Not even remotely true.

It's been shown time and time again that low-carb diets provide no metabolic advantage. Therefore they do not increase the CALORIES OUT side of the equation. Thus, fat loss ONLY occurs when they decrease the CALORIES IN side of the equation.

This is the very DEFINITION of caloric restriction.

What part of this are you failing to understand. ????

YOU WILL NOT LOSE FAT WITHOUT A CALORIC DEFICIT !!!!!!!!

I actually thought you were smarter than this despite your massive flaws in character. You clearly did not comprehend anything I've been saying. You are stating the obvious that nobody denies. It is true just like bank account balances grow when deposits exceed withdraws, fat is lost when calories OUT exceeds calories IN.

Low carb diets operate under the premise that both Calories IN and Calories OUT are regulated by the body, and that the right balance of nutrients (particularly less carbs) will allow the body to create a caloric deficit without manual manipulation.
[/quote]

See above.

omgzitsmiranda

I started Ideal Protein using alternatives 17 days ago. It's very low carb, very low cal & fat, but HIGH in protein. I don't feel deprived or hungry most of the time. It's a great program [in my own opinion]! I've done calorie counting and weight watchers and I get stuck around 20-25lbs on them, then I plateau foreverrrrr.

Last year I lost 35lbs by switching around and I NEVER lost a pants size.

I've been on IP for 17 days, lost 8lbs, NUMEROUS inches and ALMOST 3 pants sizes!

grinch031

With that being said, it is generally not required or encouraged to restrict calories on a low-carb diet,

Of course it is, if you hope to lose weight.

You seem to be uneducated about low-carb diets then so your ignorance is starting to make sense to me. The Atkins plan, probably the most well known low-carb diet does not require calorie restriction. Atkins usually leads to significant weight loss.

Not even remotely true.

It's been shown time and time again that low-carb diets provide no metabolic advantage. Therefore they do not increase the CALORIES OUT side of the equation. Thus, fat loss ONLY occurs when they decrease the CALORIES IN side of the equation.

This is the very DEFINITION of caloric restriction.

What part of this are you failing to understand. ????

Because in some people there is a metabolic advantage.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-sensitivity-and-fat-loss.html

This shows that some people respond better in weight loss on high-fat diets than high-carb diets and vice versa.

I’d note that recent research is suggesting that the interaction of diet with genetics may play a role here. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I examine recent research showing an interaction between carbohydrate intake and insulin sensitivity. However, this data doesn’t support that any single diet is de facto superior; only that a given diet might or might not be better for a given individual (depending on their individual genetics and such).

I should mention that studies comparing high to low-carbohydrate diets typically show greater weight losses in the low-carbohydrate group but this can generally be attributed to greater water losses. One or two studies have shown a slight trend towards greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate group but it’s rarely huge and is invariably confounded by the issue of hugely varying protein intake. Without exception, the ‘low-carbohydrate’ group ends up eating more protein; this raises the question of whether the benefit is due to the diet being lower in carbohydrate, or higher in protein.

Of course, athletes and bodybuilders will retort that few studies are done in very lean individuals and this is very true. It’s possible that an athlete trying to get to single digit bodyfat levels might find a given diet to produce superior results but it’s poorly studied.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

This one shows that you are full of it.

yesthistime

The best one is the one YOU can stick with. Seriously, that's all that matters.

Yes.

RonSwanson66

With that being said, it is generally not required or encouraged to restrict calories on a low-carb diet,

Of course it is, if you hope to lose weight.

You seem to be uneducated about low-carb diets then so your ignorance is starting to make sense to me. The Atkins plan, probably the most well known low-carb diet does not require calorie restriction. Atkins usually leads to significant weight loss.

Not even remotely true.

It's been shown time and time again that low-carb diets provide no metabolic advantage. Therefore they do not increase the CALORIES OUT side of the equation. Thus, fat loss ONLY occurs when they decrease the CALORIES IN side of the equation.

This is the very DEFINITION of caloric restriction.

What part of this are you failing to understand. ????

Because in some people there is a metabolic advantage.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-sensitivity-and-fat-loss.html

This shows that some people respond better in weight loss on high-fat diets than high-carb diets and vice versa.

Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. He's referring to satiety and energy-expenditure from activity.

This is not the same as a metabolic advantage.

grinch031

With that being said, it is generally not required or encouraged to restrict calories on a low-carb diet,

Of course it is, if you hope to lose weight.

You seem to be uneducated about low-carb diets then so your ignorance is starting to make sense to me. The Atkins plan, probably the most well known low-carb diet does not require calorie restriction. Atkins usually leads to significant weight loss.

Not even remotely true.

It's been shown time and time again that low-carb diets provide no metabolic advantage. Therefore they do not increase the CALORIES OUT side of the equation. Thus, fat loss ONLY occurs when they decrease the CALORIES IN side of the equation.

This is the very DEFINITION of caloric restriction.

What part of this are you failing to understand. ????

Because in some people there is a metabolic advantage.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-sensitivity-and-fat-loss.html

This shows that some people respond better in weight loss on high-fat diets than high-carb diets and vice versa.

Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding. He's referring to satiety and energy-expenditure from activity.

This is not the same as a metabolic advantage.

I’d note that recent research is suggesting that the interaction of diet with genetics may play a role here. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I examine recent research showing an interaction between carbohydrate intake and insulin sensitivity. However, this data doesn’t support that any single diet is de facto superior; only that a given diet might or might not be better for a given individual (depending on their individual genetics and such).

I should mention that studies comparing high to low-carbohydrate diets typically show greater weight losses in the low-carbohydrate group but this can generally be attributed to greater water losses. One or two studies have shown a slight trend towards greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate group but it’s rarely huge and is invariably confounded by the issue of hugely varying protein intake. Without exception, the ‘low-carbohydrate’ group ends up eating more protein; this raises the question of whether the benefit is due to the diet being lower in carbohydrate, or higher in protein.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

From the other one

The results were intriguing: insulin sensitive women on the high carb diet lost nearly double the weight as insulin sensitive women on the low-carb diet. Similarly, insulin resistant women lost twice the weight on the low-carb diet as on the high carb diet. Unfortunately, it’s not clear what caused the divergent results. The researchers mentioned a gene called FOXC2 which is involved in energy expenditure and found that it was upregulated in the individuals who responded best to diet; further research into this topic is needed (3).

...

In that study, subjects were given either a high glycemic load (60% carbs, 20% protein, 20% fat) or a low GL diet (40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fat diet) and weight loss was examined relative to baseline insulin secretion. In that study, subjects with high insulin secretion lost more weight on the low glycemic load diet while subjects in the low insulin secretion group lost slightly more on the high glycemic load diet.

RonSwanson66

I’d note that recent research is suggesting that the interaction of diet with genetics may play a role here. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I examine recent research showing an interaction between carbohydrate intake and insulin sensitivity. However, this data doesn’t support that any single diet is de facto superior; only that a given diet might or might not be better for a given individual (depending on their individual genetics and such).

I should mention that studies comparing high to low-carbohydrate diets typically show greater weight losses in the low-carbohydrate group but this can generally be attributed to greater water losses. One or two studies have shown a slight trend towards greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate group but it’s rarely huge and is invariably confounded by the issue of hugely varying protein intake. Without exception, the ‘low-carbohydrate’ group ends up eating more protein; this raises the question of whether the benefit is due to the diet being lower in carbohydrate, or higher in protein.

Of course, athletes and bodybuilders will retort that few studies are done in very lean individuals and this is very true. It’s possible that an athlete trying to get to single digit bodyfat levels might find a given diet to produce superior results but it’s poorly studied.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

This one shows that you are full of it.

Does light bend around you???

Seriously. Read the bolded parts again and show me where any of your quotations imply a metabolic advantage.

psuLemon

Seriously, it all comes down to calories in and out. You have to expend more calories than you take in to lose weight with the under standing that the body will conserve as you approach a healthier body fat. This is why and how hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people lose a lot doing programs like P90X. And the people that lose big on these programs eat 1800+ calories a day.


There isn't a need for low calorie unless you have a medical intolerance. And I bet, I can take almost any man or woman who is on low carb and get them to shred body fat like crazy. The only advantage to low carb is less glycogen is store which means a few lbs less water weight...

grinch031

I’d note that recent research is suggesting that the interaction of diet with genetics may play a role here. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I examine recent research showing an interaction between carbohydrate intake and insulin sensitivity. However, this data doesn’t support that any single diet is de facto superior; only that a given diet might or might not be better for a given individual (depending on their individual genetics and such).

I should mention that studies comparing high to low-carbohydrate diets typically show greater weight losses in the low-carbohydrate group but this can generally be attributed to greater water losses. One or two studies have shown a slight trend towards greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate group but it’s rarely huge and is invariably confounded by the issue of hugely varying protein intake. Without exception, the ‘low-carbohydrate’ group ends up eating more protein; this raises the question of whether the benefit is due to the diet being lower in carbohydrate, or higher in protein.

Of course, athletes and bodybuilders will retort that few studies are done in very lean individuals and this is very true. It’s possible that an athlete trying to get to single digit bodyfat levels might find a given diet to produce superior results but it’s poorly studied.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

This one shows that you are full of it.

Does light bend around you???

Seriously. Read the bolded parts again and show me where any of your quotations imply a metabolic advantage.

You are cherry picking.

With regards to fat intake, studies have identified what researches call low and high-fat phenotypes (phenotype is just a technical word for the interaction between your genetics and your environment) (1). Some people appear to be better able to increase fat burning in response to higher fat intakes; they stay lean in the face of such an intake. Others, however, do no such thing. Other aspects of metabolism and appetite were associated with being either a high- or low-fat phenotype.

My logic tells me that a low-carb diet would have a metabolic advantage for someone who is a high-fat phenotype and/or has insulin resistance. I never said low-carb works the same for everybody.

mrsdizzyd84

What you describe Taubes as also describes most of his critics pretty well. I'm not criticizing your choice of diet, other than to say your choice of diet would fail miserably for anyone who is highly sensitive to carbs and that is why they listen to people like Taubes.

And I never said that everyone should eat like I do or eat lots of carbs or that low carb diets were "bad", so there you go. I think you are confusing me with the folks you normally have arguments with.

grinch031

What you describe Taubes as also describes most of his critics pretty well. I'm not criticizing your choice of diet, other than to say your choice of diet would fail miserably for anyone who is highly sensitive to carbs and that is why they listen to people like Taubes.

And I never said that everyone should eat like I do or eat lots of carbs or that low carb diets were "bad", so there you go. I think you are confusing me with the folks you normally have arguments with.

You're the one with the big attitude as if someone is forcing their beliefs on you.

funkycamper

You are assuming that I ate a low fat diet before I cut the carbs. I didn't. I think you are right. I think there is a communication issue here.

My eating before hand was high fat and high carb. I've always liked fruits and veggies, so my diet also contained a lot of that stuff too. I think that makes me pretty typical of the majority of Americans at least who are eating both high fat and high carb.

So, when I cut back on my carbs, my fat was already high. I switched that fat over to mostly good fats like olive oils, avocados, fatty fish, etc. I added a bit more veggies to my diet usually in the form of a salad somewhere in the day, and i cut back my fruit to 1-2 servings a day.

This keeps me at or below 150g of carbs a day. My caloric intake is usually between 1300-1600 with MFP telling me to eat 1590 to lose a pound a week. My number usually work out to about 35% carbs, 35% fat, and 30% protein and in any case no more than 40% carbs with 30% each of fat and protein. When I eat more carbs than this I retain a hideous amount of water and I get pretty bloated, which all results in the scale moving up rather than down.

Yup, totally sounds like a communication issue. Sorry for my part in the confusion.

Previous to go lower-carb, I was doing low-fat/higher-carb eating at approximately the same level of calories I'm eating now. Now I am satiated and never hungry. With more carbs, I was always starving even shortly after a meal. I can't eat as many carbs are you can on a regular basis without kicking off the feelings of hunger due to my blood sugar rising/crashing but, if you can do it, go for it.

Again, we're all a bit different based on our age, general health, metabolism, whether or not we have any insulin resistance and/or blood sugar issues, etc. and all need to find what works best for us. Which is why these discussions drive me batty because there are people with dogmatic ideas who believe that THIS (whatever this is) works for them so it must work for everybody and that simply isn't true in my experience.

mrsdizzyd84

What you describe Taubes as also describes most of his critics pretty well. I'm not criticizing your choice of diet, other than to say your choice of diet would fail miserably for anyone who is highly sensitive to carbs and that is why they listen to people like Taubes.

And I never said that everyone should eat like I do or eat lots of carbs or that low carb diets were "bad", so there you go. I think you are confusing me with the folks you normally have arguments with.

You're the one with the big attitude as if someone is forcing their beliefs on you.

No attitude here. I couldn't care less what other people eat. I only get irritated when people suggest that I have said things that I have not said.

grinch031

So RonSwanson, so is Calories IN and Calories OUT independent of each other, such that Calories OUT is constant and can only be changed by 1) a change in body mass or 2) varying amounts of exercise. Because that is the only logical conclusion one can make to your assertion that altering the ratios of macro-nutrients does not create any kind of metabolic advantage.

RonSwanson66

I’d note that recent research is suggesting that the interaction of diet with genetics may play a role here. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I examine recent research showing an interaction between carbohydrate intake and insulin sensitivity. However, this data doesn’t support that any single diet is de facto superior; only that a given diet might or might not be better for a given individual (depending on their individual genetics and such).

I should mention that studies comparing high to low-carbohydrate diets typically show greater weight losses in the low-carbohydrate group but this can generally be attributed to greater water losses. One or two studies have shown a slight trend towards greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate group but it’s rarely huge and is invariably confounded by the issue of hugely varying protein intake. Without exception, the ‘low-carbohydrate’ group ends up eating more protein; this raises the question of whether the benefit is due to the diet being lower in carbohydrate, or higher in protein.

Of course, athletes and bodybuilders will retort that few studies are done in very lean individuals and this is very true. It’s possible that an athlete trying to get to single digit bodyfat levels might find a given diet to produce superior results but it’s poorly studied.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

This one shows that you are full of it.

Does light bend around you???

Seriously. Read the bolded parts again and show me where any of your quotations imply a metabolic advantage.

You are cherry picking.

With regards to fat intake, studies have identified what researches call low and high-fat phenotypes (phenotype is just a technical word for the interaction between your genetics and your environment) (1). Some people appear to be better able to increase fat burning in response to higher fat intakes; they stay lean in the face of such an intake. Others, however, do no such thing. Other aspects of metabolism and appetite were associated with being either a high- or low-fat phenotype.

My logic tells me that a low-carb diet would have a metabolic advantage for someone who is a high-fat phenotype and/or has insulin resistance. I never said low-carb works the same for everybody.

Words have meanings.

A metabolic advantage refers to an increase in energy expenditure independent of activity.

This is NOT what he's describing at all. Those who respond well to high carb diets feel better when they consume more carbs, thus leading to an increase in exercise activity and/or NEAT. They also tend to find carbs more satiating than those who don't respond well to high carbs.

The opposite is true for those that respond well to low-carb.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS A METABOLIC ADVANTAGE!!!!!

Acg67

So RonSwanson, so is Calories IN and Calories OUT independent of each other, such that Calories OUT is constant and can only be changed by 1) a change in body mass or 2) varying amounts of exercise. Because that is the only logical conclusion one can make to your assertion that altering the ratios of macro-nutrients does not create any kind of metabolic advantage.

Protein matters, as it has the highest TEF. Holding protein constant though, changing fat/cho intake makes negligible if any difference in fat loss

RonSwanson66

So RonSwanson, so is Calories IN and Calories OUT independent of each other, such that Calories OUT is constant and can only be changed by 1) a change in body mass or 2) varying amounts of exercise. Because that is the only logical conclusion one can make to your assertion that altering the ratios of macro-nutrients does not create any kind of metabolic advantage.

Given sufficient protein intake, this is EXACTLY what happens.

Did you even read the article you posted???

''Assuming caloric intake can be controlled (and protein is adequate of course), shuffling of carbs and fats tends to have a minor, approaching negligble effect."

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

mrsdizzyd84

You are assuming that I ate a low fat diet before I cut the carbs. I didn't. I think you are right. I think there is a communication issue here.

My eating before hand was high fat and high carb. I've always liked fruits and veggies, so my diet also contained a lot of that stuff too. I think that makes me pretty typical of the majority of Americans at least who are eating both high fat and high carb.

So, when I cut back on my carbs, my fat was already high. I switched that fat over to mostly good fats like olive oils, avocados, fatty fish, etc. I added a bit more veggies to my diet usually in the form of a salad somewhere in the day, and i cut back my fruit to 1-2 servings a day.

This keeps me at or below 150g of carbs a day. My caloric intake is usually between 1300-1600 with MFP telling me to eat 1590 to lose a pound a week. My number usually work out to about 35% carbs, 35% fat, and 30% protein and in any case no more than 40% carbs with 30% each of fat and protein. When I eat more carbs than this I retain a hideous amount of water and I get pretty bloated, which all results in the scale moving up rather than down.

Yup, totally sounds like a communication issue. Sorry for my part in the confusion.

Previous to go lower-carb, I was doing low-fat/higher-carb eating at approximately the same level of calories I'm eating now. Now I am satiated and never hungry. With more carbs, I was always starving even shortly after a meal. I can't eat as many carbs are you can on a regular basis without kicking off the feelings of hunger due to my blood sugar rising/crashing but, if you can do it, go for it.

Again, we're all a bit different based on our age, general health, metabolism, whether or not we have any insulin resistance and/or blood sugar issues, etc. and all need to find what works best for us. Which is why these discussions drive me batty because there are people with dogmatic ideas who believe that THIS (whatever this is) works for them so it must work for everybody and that simply isn't true in my experience.

And I apologize for my side of the confusion as well.

Like you said, everyone is different. I firmly believe that there is no one size fits all type of solution. I'm just glad you've found something that is working for you and that you are achieving your goals in what seems like a sustainable way.

My problem with severely restricting my carbs is that I am never happy with what I eat. Yes, I lose the weight, but I feel deprived like I'm not allowed to eat things I enjoy. Eventually, I get discouraged and give up on the whole low carb thing. Moderation works much better for me and my frame of mind. I can still l have my homemade bread, carb loaded desserts, etc just in smaller quantities and less frequently than I used to.

I'm usually not hungry at all with <150g a day. However, I am absolutely bloody starving today, but that has nothing to do with carbs. My TOM is on it's way, and the hormone changes always make me want to inhale as much food as possible. LOL

grinch031

I’d note that recent research is suggesting that the interaction of diet with genetics may play a role here. In the article Insulin Sensitivity and Fat Loss, I examine recent research showing an interaction between carbohydrate intake and insulin sensitivity. However, this data doesn’t support that any single diet is de facto superior; only that a given diet might or might not be better for a given individual (depending on their individual genetics and such).

I should mention that studies comparing high to low-carbohydrate diets typically show greater weight losses in the low-carbohydrate group but this can generally be attributed to greater water losses. One or two studies have shown a slight trend towards greater fat loss in the low-carbohydrate group but it’s rarely huge and is invariably confounded by the issue of hugely varying protein intake. Without exception, the ‘low-carbohydrate’ group ends up eating more protein; this raises the question of whether the benefit is due to the diet being lower in carbohydrate, or higher in protein.

Of course, athletes and bodybuilders will retort that few studies are done in very lean individuals and this is very true. It’s possible that an athlete trying to get to single digit bodyfat levels might find a given diet to produce superior results but it’s poorly studied.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

This one shows that you are full of it.

Does light bend around you???

Seriously. Read the bolded parts again and show me where any of your quotations imply a metabolic advantage.

You are cherry picking.

With regards to fat intake, studies have identified what researches call low and high-fat phenotypes (phenotype is just a technical word for the interaction between your genetics and your environment) (1). Some people appear to be better able to increase fat burning in response to higher fat intakes; they stay lean in the face of such an intake. Others, however, do no such thing. Other aspects of metabolism and appetite were associated with being either a high- or low-fat phenotype.

My logic tells me that a low-carb diet would have a metabolic advantage for someone who is a high-fat phenotype and/or has insulin resistance. I never said low-carb works the same for everybody.

Words have meanings.

A metabolic advantage refers to an increase in energy expenditure independent of activity.

This is NOT what he's describing at all. Those who respond well to high carb diets feel better when they consume more carbs, thus leading to an increase in exercise activity and/or NEAT. They also tend to find carbs more satiating than those who don't respond well to high carbs.

The opposite is true for those that respond well to low-carb.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS A METABOLIC ADVANTAGE!!!!!

That is what Gary Taubes says. Eating the right balance of calories allows the body to increase its calorie expenditure. Quality over quantity. We are arguing semantics more than anything here. Its kind of absurd.