Low Carb vs 'Balanced' Diet Energy Needs Different?

TheVimFuego

OK, this is something I have been mulling over this afternoon as I, once again, was not particularly hungry

We know that low carbing isn't really about calories and that we should not obsess about them ... Eat whole, natural, filling foods when hungry, keep the blood sugar level and let the body sort it out. Fair enough. Works for me.

But, since I have been logging both on a "low fat" and "low carb" diet I have a residual interest in calories (I have consumed about the same amount on both diets and low carb wins for weight loss, no surprise there).

So, my question being, since we are mainly running off of a combination of fatty acids, ketones and glucose generated by the liver (as opposed to a mainly glucose-based diet) do we still need the same intake of calories?

Does the fact that we are internally generating our energy mean that all that 1200 calorie intake absolute minimum thing (or whatever our resting metabolism needs) does not apply?

I have read a fair few books and they are big on 'if you are doing low carb don't count calories' but I haven't seen anything that addresses the question of what the minimum intake should be.

wewon

I think that there will always be a basic caloric need for your body.

Even though you are running on fatty acids, keytones and glucose from your liver, you still have to get the base material from somewhere. Otherwise it implies that your body has become a perpetual motion machine.

Its just that on a low carb diet the foods that we eat are more calorie dense (nuts and avocados @ 9cal/gram for example) and can be more sustaining. I imagine at the end of the day for someone who is in maintenance mode that the caloric intake is the same, they just don't need to refuel as often.

cramernh

I have read a fair few books and they are big on 'if you are doing low carb don't count calories' but I haven't seen anything that addresses the question of what the minimum intake should be.

I held a similar discussion with the Endocrinologist we have on board (and who is my doctor)... She mentions that the patient's current health is taken into consideration, how active they are, medications being taken, predisposed conditions being treated are all taken into account when determining "how much is really enough". She does her best to calculate based on each individual because of the obvious differences between patients and their care that is administered.

Her finding as a clinican would focus on how the patient is feeling, functioning, whether or not any new symptoms develop, the typical carb-withdrawals intensifying because of increased activity. If no other symptoms evolve, she is ok with things but she stresses that the patient must be in full communication with her because of all the medical-related issues that are being monitored.

She often informs her patients, if you feel that even months down the road, that one day comes around and you feel lightheaded, or have that carb withdrawal-related headache, she stresses to her patients "eat but treat it in a snack portion - and make sure you document it". She advises her patients to use MFP for tracking purposes and patients can print the reports out to bring with them to their appointments for analyzing.

It really does boil down to each individual, how well they are communicating with the specialist they are seeing (whether it be Endo, RD, etc), and how compliant they are in their care to really self-advocate themselves.

For those who arent under care, I would probably consider the same advice. Even though the medical standard is 1200 minimum, the problem with that is each person is different and not everyone fits the across-the-board "mold". And as an individual, circumstances will change thus the ideal for that person should be discussed with a healthcare practitioner to determine what is right for that individual.

LowcarbNY

Vim, there IS a metabolic advantage to Ketosis. But I've not seen a anything quantative.

We know that on a ketogenic, burning fat for energy, you will have ketones in your blood stream and that some of those will be excreted in your urine, sweat and breath. Those excreted ketones are energy, energy that is lost from the metabolism of fat. If you are excreting ketones then you aren't getting your full "moneys worth" of calories out of that fat molecule. But how much is lost in the level of ketones that are lost from your body? That is the question. Think about it. Unless your have kidney disease you don't excrete protein. You never excrete fat. Unless you are an out of control diabetic you don't excrete carbohydrates.
So there is a metabolic advantage , but how small or large is it?

Likewise, to make glucose out of protein requires breaking down the protein into amino acids and then are assembling them into glucose. My analysis of a study by Young, C "Effect on Body Composition and Other Parameters on Obese Young Men of Carbohydrate Level Reduction Diet" American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 24 , 1971, pp 290-296 Suggests that it might be as high as 20% lost as compared to a non ketogenic diet.

shar140

This isn't exactly a direct answer to your question, but this is an experiment (n=1, of course) of how one person's metabolism (% of glucose used vs. fat) changed as a result of low-carb:
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance

I read about a study recently that measured caloric needs in low-carb vs not low-carb diets, but I'll have to hunt around for where I found that. Or, not necessarily caloric need, but a low-carb person could eat more total calories and still lose/maintain weight, but I don't remember specific numbers.

TheVimFuego

Thanks all, food (and drink ) for thought there, I am still learning to listen to my body and I too think that this is the overriding principle. One size does not fit all nutritionally. n=1 absolutely.

I have screwed with my body in the past with repeated calorie restriction and low fat stuff and I reckon my requirements are lower than most for a 6ft (ish) fairly fit and active bloke. I am just trying to manage a transition to some kind of maintenance phase.

My energy is good, progress is fine, no fainting or anything like that so I guess I can afford to up the intake a bit now

LowcarbNY

Follow up to my previous post.


I'm working from memory here so I may be off a tad on the descriptions but I'm rock solid on the numbers.

In the study, groups of young obese men were put on 1800 calorie a day diets. Difference between the groups were 120g, 60g and 30g of carbs. Only the 30g/day carb group showed significant increase in weight loss over the others. 2.5 lb/week for the control 3.73 lb/week for the 30g group.

Each group had an input of 12,600 calories per week. Doing the math, (3500 cal per lb) says that the energy used by each group was 21,350 for the others and 25,655 for the 30g group. 25,655/21,350 = 1.2 hence 20% more calories burned.

Now were the 30g group really in fat burning mode or did they mostly burn off their glycogen/water stores? Let's suppose that both groups didn't burn any fat at all and all that happened is that the 30g group used up more glycogen than the other groups. Glycogen/water complex has about 500 calories/lb doing the same math with this figure produces the ratio of 14,465/13,850 => 4.4%

Hey, I'll take a free 4.4% more calories burned any time. Think what that means. if your nominal TDEE is 2200 calories and you eat 2200 calories. 4.4% free burn on top of that means you lose 10 lbs per year. It's a free 100 calories a day.

TheVimFuego

Thanks for that LowcarbNY, interesting.

I do not put any faith in the 3500 calorie deficit thing though, I believe that it just doesn't hold true consistantly.

Applying a mathematical solution to a biological problem isn't the way to go for me.

I see optimum fat loss as more of an issue of allowing the body to burn fat first (through diet and controlling the metabolism) and then worrying about calories (or not).

I guess I fail to see the link now between energy deficit and related fat loss, the latter just doesn't seem to follow by implication (as born out by many many examples of failed diets). The whole "Eat like this an you will lose" is a bit of a sick joke sent to taunt us.

Hence, I guess, my interest in my caloric intake ... Does it matter? Can I munch an extra 1000 calories a day (in good food ) and still get the same, or better, results?

I have gone from being hungry, tired and worrying about fat gain to not being hungry and concerned about energy intake ... I'll take the latter

I guess the proof is in the trying ... I may up my intake by 200 for a while and see where it leads me. n=1 ...

I appreciate the input though.

AlabasterVerve

I can't remember where I read this so take it for what it's worth but I read for maintenance you need to up your fat intake because your body isn't pulling from your fat stores anymore so you need to make that deficit up. There were a couple of posts where the cravings and hunger came back after months of low carbing and the solution was the same, to increase fat intake.

Like I said, I can't remember where I read that though and I'm new to this and no where near maintenance so I'm not sure how common that is for people.

jtakingcareofherself

I don't have any scientific data to support, but I figure feeling hungry is the best measure that you're not consuming "enough" calories. And for me "enough" seems to vary each day.

I figure it must be variability in water, activity, hormonal fluctuations (I'm a lady , or maybe how efficient my body is that day of using fat for fuel. Some days, I consume around 1000 calories and 25 g of carbs, and I'm more hungry than on days I consume 850 calories and same carbs.

So when I get hungry, I eat a piece of bison jerky and all is well. I know that when I used to consume such few calories out of ketosis, I was absolutely famished, stomach growling. I could never have lasted on 850 a day!

So if I were to place a bet, I would guess the minimum required IS different when you're in ketosis.
I think listening to the body always gives one the best answer!

volume77

Personally I've found I can eat more on low carb and loose/ maintain vs.
The same amount of calories on high carb make me gain.... I know thus wasn't really your question but I thought I would share.
Also studies found that people could eat more while keeping their carbs low and didn't gain weight. I don't know the exact name of the study but it was a recent one. You could google " eat more on low carb" it will come up. New York is full of great info. I also find your posts very informative and interesting

TheVimFuego

Thanks again all, yes, fat increase is generally the way to go (as opposed to carbs) but I'm pretty big on fat (intake ) already so maybe I can add some more carbs like sweet potato to give myself some variety.

Listening to the body is definitely the way to go, and something much easier to do when you are off the blood sugar rollercoaster.

I definitely think I can eat more calories on the low carb versus low fat and maintain weight (I've proved it on MFP as I started low fat) I guess I'll experiment with some more of the 'safe starches' and see how it goes.

AlabasterVerv, I've seen those studies, quite eye-opening and just goes to show what effect hormones will have on fat loss or deposition. Something the calorie-fixated lot seem blind to. As was I 6 months ago for that matter ...

Thanks again.

LowcarbNY

Vim, my point of doing the math was to try to put some bounds on the "efficiency" question.
Using the study I cited suggests that a keto diet results in somewhere between 4% and 20% inefficiency.

For a typical person that would translate into being able to eat 100 - 500 more Calories per day vs a non-keto diet.
YMMV.

TheVimFuego

Vim, my point of doing the math was to try to put some bounds on the "efficiency" question.
Using the study I cited suggests that a keto diet results in somewhere between 4% and 20% inefficiency.

For a typical person that would translate into being able to eat 100 - 500 more Calories per day vs a non-keto diet.
YMMV.

OK thanks, I had completely missed that point, I will go back and re-read

Bakkasan

I've seen the 20% number quite a bit.
I know I CAN consume 2500 a day and lose 2lb a week vs 1600 on a low fat high carb diet. YMMV indeed...

TheVimFuego

I've seen the 20% number quite a bit.
I know I CAN consume 2500 a day and lose 2lb a week vs 1600 on a low fat high carb diet. YMMV indeed...

Absolutely, it all depends on how your body is metabolising things and genetics. Nature loads the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger and all that.

Some people don't get on well with low carbing, the people that do tend to have insulin sensitivity issues.

Given our sugar and starch consumption generally these people are in the majority I would wager.

jtakingcareofherself

So I take back what I said the other day! LOL! I now think staying close to BMR is a better bet.

Got my Bod Pod done yesterday, and lost quite a bit of lean body mass (over 5 lbs in 5 weeks). Been below my BMR a lot, as being in ketosis hardly ever has me hungry. So I have been eating only when hungry! But consuming about 1 g of protein for 1 lb of lean body weight and doing some light (pilates) resistance training.

But that does not look to be enough!

So I'm going to go up to my BMR, and about 1.2 g of protein per lb of lean mass, and go to heavy lifting too.

Looks like more bison pepperoni and hard boiled eggs for me!