does Low Carb cause Low Energy? advice needed.

Lina4Lina

The brain doesn't only run on carbs (glucose from carbs) but it is its primary/preferred food. You may experience brain fog/loss of energy within the first week as your brain adjusts to its secondary food.

50g carb/day is pretty low, I think most low carb diets operate at 100g/day or less.

I'm not on a low carb diet so I eat about 200g/day.

You just have to figure out what works best for you. Many people have issues with low carb compliance and it would better for you to be high carb than to do a low carb/high carb restrict/binge cycle. So do some experimentation and see what makes you feel best and works best for you. Remember, you do lose fast initially on a low carb diet, but that isn't fat you lose initially, it is glycogen and water. Many people find it motivating though.

Oh and I should say that my PCOS/IR/Hypoglycemic self lost 5 lbs this week on a high carb diet and I've had tons of energy as well. I associate the energy with my workouts but I felt energized to do the workouts.

AlabasterVerve

Why does low carb have hard limits, like 50g or 20g carbs, rather than a percentage of calorie intake or a limit relative to the person's mass?

The 50g limit is made up.

The 20g limit is from the induction phase of Atkins ~ which in itself was never intended to be a long term diet.

My advice to the OP is to up your carbs to about the 100g level and see how you go from there. You might want to raise or lower them as you see fit depending on results.

The 50g might be arbitrary without any basis in fact but less than 50g of carbs a day is considered very low carb and it seems to be the standard when it comes to researching low carb diets?

Definitions

Diets that limit carbohydrate intake have been called low-carbohydrate, very-low-carbohydrate,
high-protein, high-fat, and ketogenic. For the purpose of this review, we use the term
very-low-carbohydrate diet, defined as less than 50 g of carbohydrate per day.

Not all very-low-carbohydrate diets are high-protein diets, and vice versa. For example,
a mixed diet with “high protein” would not be a very-low-carbohydrate diet if it contained
more than 50 g of carbohydrates per day.

http://ccjm.org/content/69/11/849.full.pdf

2. Ad lib low carbohydrat diet (ALCD): <50g / day for 2 days per week with other food types (e.g. protein) ad lib

http://www.sabcs.org/PressReleases/Documents/Harvie.pdf

The study participants were from 25 pediatric offices with 47 pediatricians in the Cincinnati, Ohio area and were between the ages of 12 and 18 with a body mass index (BMI) in the 95th percentile range for their age, or clinically morbidly obese. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of the children were placed on a ketogenic low-carb diet with 50g or less carbohydrate daily.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529518

cramernh

ketosis /ke·to·sis/ (ke-to´sis) accumulation of excessive amounts of ketone bodies in body tissues and fluids, occurring when fatty acids are incompletely metabolized.ketot´ic

ketoacidosis /ke·to·ac·i·do·sis/ (ke″to-as″ĭ-do´sis) acidosis accompanied by the accumulation of ketone bodies in the body tissues and fluids

If you are seeing the highest/darkest purple reading on a ketostix, that is not good. That should be reviewed by a treating specialist whether or not to be that high is ok.

Purple on the sticks is actually quite normal in strong ketosis, and doesn't always indicate a problem. I've seen purple ketones more times than I can count, with no ketoacidosis which a serious medical condition that requires professional emergency care to clear up.

Ketoacidosis is usually related to type 1 diabetes who do NOT produce any insulin internally, and that only happens if they go off insulin for a few DAYS, or are so sick that their insulin needs skyrocket but are unable to digest any carbs, requiring a dextrose IV plus lots of insulin. I know lots of parents whose children went into DKA and my soon was the verge. You can't miss it, because DKA looks like wearing death as a mask.

If you are type 2 diabetic, there is little chance you can get here, since you still produce insulin internally.

The darkest purple should be monitored by a physician/treating specialist to make sure it is ok to maintain that. Those types of patients require more review. That is good common sense. I work in healthcare for a living and have seen patients go through serious medical problems as a result of not consulting with their physicians in an adequate amount of time.

Determinednoob

I haven't read more than the OP. You don;t need to be at any level of carbs to lose fat. You need to be at less cals in than burned and for best results MINIMUMS of 1g protein\lb LBM, .45g fat\lb of LBM. Yes, really low carb intake can lead to lack of energy.

hpsnickers1

Info on Carb flu (this is real and is like drug withdrawl):
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/search-results/?cx=004987908667488763946:kd-fp2c7jek&amp;cof=FORID:11&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=carb+flu

Coconut oil and pastured butter have MCTs - these fats are more likely to be used for energy rather than stored. Use both of them and they will help with energy.

I didn't suffer carb flu but my prediabetic body was crying out for more fat (the USDA guidlines - yes even the "healthy" whole grain standard American diet - were sending me into full blown diabetes).

And just keep going. You will get through it. Your body is just figuring out what to do. It's been burning sugar (a fast burning fuel) for a long time and you just took away that source. (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-metabolic-paradigm-shift-fat-carbs-human-body-metabolism/)

Hang in there and eventually your body will figure it out:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-fat-adapted/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-fat-adapted-part-2-qa/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-fat-burning-beast/

(protein and fat are used for repair/growth/maintenance and not for energy. A calorie is a unit of energy only.) There are plenty of people out there that need to be at a certain level of carb to lose fat.

And no, not everyone agrees with this - I don't expect everyone to. But I don't care.

A calorie is measured by lighting food on fire and measuring the heat put off. That isn't how my body processes calories.

My body loves ketosis.

saxmaniac

The darkest purple should be monitored by a physician/treating specialist to make sure it is ok to maintain that.

True, maintaining is very different than a one-off. I'm just saying a single purple reading is no reason to head to the ER.

myofibril

The 50g might be arbitrary without any basis in fact but less than 50g of carbs a day is considered very low carb and it seems to be the standard when it comes to researching low carb diets?

Definitions

Diets that limit carbohydrate intake have been called low-carbohydrate, very-low-carbohydrate,
high-protein, high-fat, and ketogenic. For the purpose of this review, we use the term
very-low-carbohydrate diet, defined as less than 50 g of carbohydrate per day.

Not all very-low-carbohydrate diets are high-protein diets, and vice versa. For example,
a mixed diet with “high protein” would not be a very-low-carbohydrate diet if it contained
more than 50 g of carbohydrates per day.

http://ccjm.org/content/69/11/849.full.pdf

Correct. It is arbitrary without any basis in fact. It's not really a "standard" as such but simply follows the artificial limit of the Yudkin / Carey study of the 60s (which is cited in the Volek study which you linked above) to my knowledge. Volek mentions in his study that it would also correlate to a 10% of intake (in the definitions paragraph which you partially quoted above but not in its entirety.) The standard recommended intake is 2000 calories a day and based on that this equates to roughly 50g if 10% is applied to carbs by Volek's own definitions.

Let's be clear. There is no clinical consensus that 50g constitutes low carb. There is no clear definition of low carb either. Using the 50g per day limit does conveniently draw in many "favourable" studies which shows that low carb is "better" for weight loss (but not fat derived weight loss that is) and to be fair it does explicitly state that it is water loss in Volek's review..

Incidentally Dr Jeff in an Atkins Foundation sponsored researcher if I recall correctly. I'm an not saying that has influenced his findings but it would be better if researchers refrained from any kind of affiliation to ensure independence...

(edited for accuracy)

yarwell

Why does low carb have hard limits, like 50g or 20g carbs, rather than a percentage of calorie intake or a limit relative to the person's mass?

Might be because the brain's energy requirements are fairly consistent, so the difference between carb intake and that is perhaps the key factor. If there isn't enough glucose then you switch to ketosis.

Akimajuktuq

The BRAIN only runs on CARBOHYDRATES! Low carb diet damage your brain and kidneys. If you have questions about what kind of diet to follow talk to your doctor. Any fad diet can be damaging to your body. Just because it says a doctor wrote the book does not mean they are a Medical Doctor.

I see your scare post on a number of topics. There is no one getting zero carbs. We all agree that eating vegetables is good; there are carbs in all vegetables. A low carb diet does not damage health (there may be an underlying condition-that's something different and in that case someone should consult their doctor) and actually IMPROVES health for many people. Eating whole, natural foods is hardly a "fad" but I guess could be considered so by SAD promoters.

Ok, you are saying a medical doctor knows more about nutrition than a doctor who has seen something is wrong so does more research to see why the status quo isn't working? Really... All of my family doctors have only had one course in nutrition. Doctors learn about treating disease, usually with drugs. They learn minimal info about nutrition and disease prevention, unless they have a special interest and study those topics aside from the regular training. The doctors who do that sometimes disagree with our current dietary recommendations and occasionally share their information with others; thank goodness for that.

Please, please tell me why: if a low carb diet, full of whole foods including vegetables, meat, eggs, nuts, seeds, some fruit etc is SO dangerous, why do so many people feel GREAT, have boundless energy, and have improvements in their health when they eat that way? Do you think we can't tell that we feel better than when we ate processed, GMO grains??? What about the people who have measureable improvements in their health (lower cholesterol, triglycerides, controlled diabetes, weight loss, etc); are their doctors in on the conspiracy to say they their health has improved when it hasn't?

maremare312

I think in general I have more energy doing low carb, but that's after the first week or two where sometimes I feel a bit draggy.

AlabasterVerve

Correct. It is arbitrary without any basis in fact. <snip>

Ok, I buy that there's never been any studies to determine it but keeping carbs under 50g a day is what's recommended if you're trying to enter ketosis and commonly accepted as fact.

Probably because if you read things like this from The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living it's sounds like they're not just talking out their *kitten* and that there was actual research done to determine at what point you enter ketosis. lol

Defining ‘Nutritional Ketosis’
The second way to define ‘low carbohydrate’ is physiologic – specifically that level below which there is a fundamental shift in your body’s fuel homeostasis (i.e., energy regulation) away from glucose as a primary fuel. This shift is the adaptation of the body’s hormonal set and inter-organ fuel exchange to allow most of your daily energy needs to be met by fat, either directly as fatty acids or indirectly by ketone bodies made from fat. This process, which is discussed more fully in Chapter 7, begins for most adults when total carbohydrate is restricted to less than 60 grams per day along with a moderate intake of protein. After a few weeks at this level, the primary serum ‘ketone’ (beta-hydroxybutyrate, or B-OHB), rises above 0.5 millimolar (mM). At this ketone level, which is 10-fold higher than that in someone with a daily intake of 300 grams of carbohydrate, the brain begins to derive a substantial portion of its energy needs from B-OHB, resulting in a commensurate reduced need for glucose.
With further restriction of carbohydrate below 50 grams per day, the serum B-OHB rises in response to reduced insulin secretion. However, because dietary protein prompts some insulin release, and serum B-OHB itself stimulates insulin release by the pancreas (albeit subtly), adults eating 20 grams of carbohydrate and 75-150 grams per day of protein rarely run serum B -OHB levels above 3 mM. This is in contrast to the response to total starvation (i.e., no dietary carbs or protein) where the serum BOHB levels run as high as 5 mM.

clobercow

Just watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpMfmaOlMpE

Oh and I completely agree with you Sampadan

This guys you-tube channel is terrible and idiotic. Everything he said in that particular video is wrong.

vintagebrighton

I haven't read more than the OP. You don;t need to be at any level of carbs to lose fat. You need to be at less cals in than burned and for best results MINIMUMS of 1g protein\lb LBM, .45g fat\lb of LBM. Yes, really low carb intake can lead to lack of energy.

For some people this isn't true, just like one size doesn't fit all........... My calorie limit to lose weight according to MFP is about 1400, I regularly go waaaay over, sometimes up to 2500 and still lose weight. Why? Because it suits my body to limit my carbs to less than 50g per day, usually I'm at 30g per day. Yet, according to the 'calorie in, calorie out' brigade I should be putting on weight.

I'm not saying your method doesn't work for some people, but what I am saying is that it doesn't work for everyone. I can't tell you the number of years I tried to lose weight with the high carb, low fat orthodoxy miserably failing every time and thinking it was my fault.

Anyway, just another view

vintagebrighton

Oh, and I eat a ton of veg and plenty of berries and all my tests for cholestrol, bp etc are normal now.... result!

Spartan_Maker

I'm confused. How is ketosis good for diabetics when the goal is to keep them out of diabetic ketoacidosis?

That's like comparing an airplane and a tree.

Spartan_Maker

For 5 days now I've been very mindful of how many carbs I am eating. MFP puts my limit at 260g a day. I heard recently that I should be at 50 a day for fat loss. so 5 days now, working on the 50g of carbs a day and today I've just had no energy. I am usually full of energy and ready to tackle my day, but this morning I didn't want to get off the couch. I finally did but spent the day sluggish. Does this have anything to do with the carb decrease and if so will it subside after my body adjusts? Thanks everyone for your advice!

Maybe I'm a special phenotype (although I doubt it), but at 6'0", 205, I could easily get from breakfast to dinner on 27 grams of carbohydrates and probably plow a field with a garden rake:

5 pieces of bacon
3 jumbo eggs
2 ounces of cheese
12 ounces of milk
1 scoop of whey protein

840 calories: 27 g carbohydrates; 77 grams of protein; and 47 grams of fat.

jkimmett

I have lost all my weight low carb. The carbs I do get are from fruits and beans, not from processed white breads, rice and pasta. I am usually between 50 and 100g per day although I do try to stay under 50. Its not easy but it is possible. I now have so much energy its crazy! I love eating low carb. Good luck!

Determinednoob

I haven't read more than the OP. You don;t need to be at any level of carbs to lose fat. You need to be at less cals in than burned and for best results MINIMUMS of 1g protein\lb LBM, .45g fat\lb of LBM. Yes, really low carb intake can lead to lack of energy.

For some people this isn't true, just like one size doesn't fit all........... My calorie limit to lose weight according to MFP is about 1400, I regularly go waaaay over, sometimes up to 2500 and still lose weight. Why? Because it suits my body to limit my carbs to less than 50g per day, usually I'm at 30g per day. Yet, according to the 'calorie in, calorie out' brigade I should be putting on weight.

I'm not saying your method doesn't work for some people, but what I am saying is that it doesn't work for everyone. I can't tell you the number of years I tried to lose weight with the high carb, low fat orthodoxy miserably failing every time and thinking it was my fault.

Anyway, just another view

MFP recommendations are crap. Its recommendations for me were around 1500 plus or minus. I lost 3lbs per week on 2k. You are, on average, burning more calories than you consume. This has to do largely with the fact that you have cut out so many carbs.

vintagebrighton

I haven't read more than the OP. You don;t need to be at any level of carbs to lose fat. You need to be at less cals in than burned and for best results MINIMUMS of 1g protein\lb LBM, .45g fat\lb of LBM. Yes, really low carb intake can lead to lack of energy.

For some people this isn't true, just like one size doesn't fit all........... My calorie limit to lose weight according to MFP is about 1400, I regularly go waaaay over, sometimes up to 2500 and still lose weight. Why? Because it suits my body to limit my carbs to less than 50g per day, usually I'm at 30g per day. Yet, according to the 'calorie in, calorie out' brigade I should be putting on weight.

I'm not saying your method doesn't work for some people, but what I am saying is that it doesn't work for everyone. I can't tell you the number of years I tried to lose weight with the high carb, low fat orthodoxy miserably failing every time and thinking it was my fault.

Anyway, just another view

MFP recommendations are crap. Its recommendations for me were around 1500 plus or minus. I lost 3lbs per week on 2k. You are, on average, burning more calories than you consume. This has to do largely with the fact that you have cut out so many carbs.

So MFP recommendations are crap? Possibly but they seem to work for many people. I'm 5ft 1in, 50yrs old and a moderately active female. By any recommendation I shouldn't be losing weight on 2000-25000 calories per day. Looks to me like you do weights or go to the gym or something.... I walk. Still, it's always calories in calories out eh?

clobercow

I haven't read more than the OP. You don;t need to be at any level of carbs to lose fat. You need to be at less cals in than burned and for best results MINIMUMS of 1g protein\lb LBM, .45g fat\lb of LBM. Yes, really low carb intake can lead to lack of energy.

For some people this isn't true, just like one size doesn't fit all........... My calorie limit to lose weight according to MFP is about 1400, I regularly go waaaay over, sometimes up to 2500 and still lose weight. Why? Because it suits my body to limit my carbs to less than 50g per day, usually I'm at 30g per day. Yet, according to the 'calorie in, calorie out' brigade I should be putting on weight.

I'm not saying your method doesn't work for some people, but what I am saying is that it doesn't work for everyone. I can't tell you the number of years I tried to lose weight with the high carb, low fat orthodoxy miserably failing every time and thinking it was my fault.

Anyway, just another view

MFP recommendations are crap. Its recommendations for me were around 1500 plus or minus. I lost 3lbs per week on 2k. You are, on average, burning more calories than you consume. This has to do largely with the fact that you have cut out so many carbs.

So MFP recommendations are crap? Possibly but they seem to work for many people. I'm 5ft 1in, 50yrs old and a moderately active female. By any recommendation I shouldn't be losing weight on 2000-25000 calories per day. Looks to me like you do weights or go to the gym or something.... I walk. Still, it's always calories in calories out eh?

It is more complicated than calories in vs calories out. There are people who stall due to metabolism down regulation, over-consumption of carbs, especially frucose. VLCD's only work for a while before they become ineffective. There are all kinds of hormonal balance issues that we should consider.