Low carb diets?

tigersword

YES, your body goes into ketosis when you have no available glucose/glycogen left, but if you ate 1500 calories of protein anyway, your body would FIRST use those 1500 calories of protein by converting them into something it can use (sugar or sugar by-products). Your body DOES NOT automatically start using your fat stores JUST because you didn't eat any glucose today.... Sorry but your chemistry and biology classes haven't taught you much, yet anyway. (5 years of biochemistry here)

Uh-uh miahh, you also over simplify the process of energy pathways utilized by the body in a statement like this. I'm sure you know it is highly unlikely for the body to only use one source of calories (the 1500 calories of ingested protein mentioned above) to meet the energy demands.I'm sure you know for a specific state (ketogenic, carb saturated, exercising, resting etc.) the body still has its hierarchy of preferred energy source and that this hierarchy changes as the state of the body changes. A specific cell may elusively utilize one source of energy (fatty acids, amino acids, glucose) for a given time, but the body as a whole will rarely be able to do this.

Thermodynamically,... fat and protein and carbohydrates do contain vastly different amounts of energy per gram of material, which is why they would be different calories for the same amount of food. ...

I have also come across this in the literature, but not that they differ vastly
Can you please elaborate on this ?
(Damn, ran out of time.)

Here's the part being ignored, let's say you do eat 1500 calories, and let's say you are in ketosis. Yes, your body is still burning fat from fat stores, even after eating (it is a 24/7 process after all, regardless of diet.) The downside there, is you just ate a large quantity of food that your body can't use all at once, so while it's in ketosis and burning fat from fat stores, it's also storing fat back into the fat stores AT THE SAME TIME. Total overall fat oxidation in any given 24 hour period ultimately comes down to total calories eaten vs total calories burned, regardless of dietary macro composition. While you can manipulate TEF using various macronutrient ratios, ultimately, it's a very minor difference. 2000 calories with a 50C/25P/25F ratio has a TEF of about 210 calories. Changing that to a ratio of 25C/25P/50F only has a TEF of about 170 calories, meaning that, keeping protein constant, higher carb diets actually boost metabolic activity more than low carb diets do. You'd need to eat 20C/40P/40F to match the TEF of the 50% carb diet, as that would burn about 215 calories.

As for the "vast differences," protein and carbs are 4 calories per gram, with fat at 9 calories per gram. I'd say fat is vastly different, as more than double, in my opinion, constitutes "vast."

NovoActive

Ah, sorry if I completed the reply above bofore posting it would have
saved you guys (miahh and tigersword) from stating the obvious:
that 4,4,7,9 kcal/g for carbohydrates, protein, alcohol and fat respectively.
What I meant was in vitro studies show the above mentioned abmounts of
energy for the macro nutrients, but I can't seem to fin the source that
claimed to state more accurated values
(some thing like 3.6 kcal/g protein and 3.9 kcal/g for carbohydrates.
*to be corrected*).
This is because ultimately we rely on the Krebs to produce ATP
(the only energy currency in the human body) and the different
macro nutrients go through different pathways to produce ATP.

So I was wondering with your 5 years of biochemistry you might have come
accross this.

You are definitely right that the energy pathways vary quite a bit, but I was trying
to make the point that for most people, calories in vs. calories out are more important
than cutting out sugar. At the end of the day, or week, your body has used it's daily BMR
of calories (or x7 per week)... and if you ate at your BMR or averaged that much per day
over a week, it doesn't matter as much WHAT you ate, because the energy expenditure is the
most important part of the fat loss. Eating at a deficit is more important than trying to
cut out sugar "because it makes us fat".

I agree with this statement in the case of a 'normal' person that is over weight.
However this is not the case in my body and in practise this would also not work
for poeple like competitive body builders who want to get their body fat % below 5%,
for example.
In the these two cases it really does make a differnce what you eat.

But okay, these two cases would be ouliers in a population and that is why you could
quote the above sources that claim

carbohydrates alone have no effect on weight
loss when other factors are held constant: ...

beacause the they could not be included in these studies. That is selective science
and the results should be regarded as such.

tigersword

I agree TEF does play a negligible role in our daily energy budget.

2000 calories with a
50C/25P/25F ... TEF of about 210 calories.
25C/25P/50F ... TEF of about 170 calories, ...
20C/40P/40F ... would burn about 215 calories.

According to Principles and Practice of Endocrinology and Metabolism
(December 2002): by Kenneth L. Becker (Editor), C. Ronald Kahn (Editor),
Robert W. Rebar (Editor) By Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publishers

These values should be:
50C/25P/25F ... TEF = 275 kcal
25C/25P/50F ... TEF = 275 kcal
20C/40P/40F ... TEF = 320 kcal
since
"The TEF refers to an increase in heat production during the absorptive phase after
food ingestion, apparently resulting from the energy cost of digesting, absorbing,
and metabolizing food substances. Typically, the TEF causes the loss of ~10% of the
potential caloric value of a mixed diet*. This represents the integrated energy
expenditure related to the handling of ingested carbohydrate and lipid (5%), and
of protein (25%)."
*does not state the macro nutrien ratio for the mixed diet.

WendyTerry420

The ideal for weight loss is plenty of protein and a caloric deficit. Let carbs and fats fall where they may, so long as you aren't hungry.

MissSusieQ

I did a low carb diet that was really effective, but difficult to adhere to as it was strict.
I was allowed 20g of carbs per day, and had to get 4 serves of protien in. I had to be very strict in my measurement of carbs because the aim was to get me into ketosis and keep me nicely there, where my body was burning fat for energy.
I tested my urine each morning for ketone content to make sure I was in the right 'zone' (too many ketones meant I was burning muscle, not fat, too few meant I wasn't in ketosis)
and it worked. The first week I lost almost 3kg. following weeks it was unusual to lose under 1kg.
I think back and I think there was something to it. Sure, i was eating more healthy foods, but when I think of the things I ate (full fat dairy, lots of nuts, low carb protien snacks) my calories were actually pretty high. I never really looked at the calories or fat content, just carbs and protien.
I see things are getting heated on here, so feel I should add that I'm not trying to explain the science, I'm telling you what my coach told me and my experience with it.
and if anybody tells me I'm oversimplifying the way the body burns fuel, I'll moosh their face.

volume77

Low carb has helped me reach my goal and maintain my weight better than any other way of eating. I am a happy person and to maintain i eat a reasonable amount of carbs. About 50-60 net to maintain. I vary on the day though... I always say whatever works for you ! Some people disagree with it others love it! It's all about finding something that works for you in your lifestyle;) Hope that helps! Feel free to add me if you want any low carb buddies:)

srobinson84

I eat a low carb Paleo/Primal diet and I feel amazing. I don't believe that weight loss is strictly calories in/calories out. There are so many other factors that come into play.

The author of the blog at gnolls.org is very good at explaining many of the mechanisms behind the Paleo/Primal way of eating.

WendyTerry420

I eat a low carb Paleo/Primal diet and I feel amazing. I don't believe that weight loss is strictly calories in/calories out. There are so many other factors that come into play.

The author of the blog at gnolls.org is very good at explaining many of the mechanisms behind the Paleo/Primal way of eating.

Well believe it or not, but I get 50% of my calories from carbohydrates and I'm losing weight. If you take in less energy than you use, then your body has no choice but to take from stored energy. Not getting enough protein can cause the body to take from muscles too, so I make sure to get my daily protein and the carbs and fats fall where they will.

DarleneBDA

I have cut out my starches from my carb intake , but not all my carbs, because there are good carbs.

mmapags

I have cut out my starches from my carb intake , but not all my carbs, because there are good carbs.

And how do you tell a good carb from a bad one? What makes one good and one bad nutritionally and physiologically?

tigersword

I have cut out my starches from my carb intake , but not all my carbs, because there are good carbs.

And how do you tell a good carb from a bad one? What makes one good and one bad nutritionally and physiologically?

Bad carbs rob banks?

CATindeeHAT

Low-Carb dieting has made it possible for me to lose weight. HOWEVER, I plateaued for close to 2 years until recently when I started to re-incorporate carbohydrates back into my diet (in moderation). I never go over 150 grams of carbohydrates a day, I have started weight-lifting and intense cardio conditioning, and have upped my protein. My scale continues to go down.

Keep in mind though that I am type 2 diabetic.

Eliminating an entire food group is just plain stupid and eating 'strictly' low-carb will lead you to a prolonged stall. Bottom line, low-carb dieting will lead you to be 'skinny-fat' (small size with a high body fat percentage). You need the carbs to have the energy to lift-weights and burn calories, without them you will look good with clothes on, but 'obese' naked.

axialmeow

I follow one(Dr. ordered for PCOS) and usually get around 1200 cal/day.

yarwell

Studies that show that low carbohydrates alone have no effect on weight loss when other factors are held constant:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3360561

"Twenty-four hour whole body indirect calorimetry has been used to study the effects of feeding, during a sedentary test day, isoenergetic diets which varied in fat (3 or 40 per cent of total energy) and carbohydrate (82 or 45 per cent) content."

so not exactly low carb, and certainly not done after 2-3 weeks of adaptation to a low carb diet.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science says "There are at least thirteen [updated:16] modern high quality trials that have shown significantly better weight loss with low carb diets."

There are also many inconclusive studies, which often mix men and women or have other statistical issues that mean the difference in average weight loss is visibly large but not statistically significant.

I'm not aware of any high quality studies that show low carb to be worse so I'm happy to take a chance on coming out as one of the winners.

lisamarie2181

I have cut out my starches from my carb intake , but not all my carbs, because there are good carbs.

And how do you tell a good carb from a bad one? What makes one good and one bad nutritionally and physiologically?

I think when a lot of people say this they mean there are certain carbs that spike your blood sugar and others that don't and keep it steady or "slower release". There is a difference between carbs, anyone that is diabetic or been told to restrict there carbs have probably all been told the same thing - get rid of white refined carbs. This is what most people refer to as bad carbs. You may be able to eat these kinds of carbs and have success, but a lot of people can't, and some just flat out choose not to. A lot of people believe that yes a grain in it's whole form or beans are going to be better carbs to choose to eat because they are nutrient dense, compared to others that get stripped of them in the processing of the product they are in.


I have PCOS and was highly recommended to follow low carb. But there are many different ways to do low carb. When I did it in the past, I ate what I wanted as long as it had no carbs. I didn't care how processed it was, or how high cal, just watched the carbs, which means my body was probably severely malnourished. And almost every PCOS site I have been on has said the same thing - cut out processed food, eat lots of nutrient dense foods like whole grains, veggies, etc. Ever since I cut out the processed and started cooking and eating healthy foods, everything has changed for me, not just speaking of weight loss.

Some people choose to do more then just worry about cals in cals out because it strictly applies to WEIGHT LOSS and just seeing the number go down on the scale may be a side benefit for them, not the major one. Yes if you are at a calorie deficit you will lose weight, but people have ailments to fix and illnesses to cure and follow more structure specific approaches for these reasons, not just for weight loss.

Sorry to the person I quoted, was just kinda going off your question and my thoughts kept coming lol

Mrs_Duh

I eat a low carb Paleo/Primal diet and I feel amazing. I don't believe that weight loss is strictly calories in/calories out. There are so many other factors that come into play.

The author of the blog at gnolls.org is very good at explaining many of the mechanisms behind the Paleo/Primal way of eating.

I'm Paleo-Primal as well. I've lost weight that I've been trying to lose for years after just one month. I also feel better. I eat about 1500 calories per day on this diet, and I usually don't have an issues with not feeling full.

wfte

Eliminating an entire food group is just plain stupid and eating 'strictly' low-carb will lead you to a prolonged stall. Bottom line, low-carb dieting will lead you to be 'skinny-fat' (small size with a high body fat percentage). You need the carbs to have the energy to lift-weights and burn calories, without them you will look good with clothes on, but 'obese' naked.

Yes because this guy on a very low carb diet clearly lacks the energy to do strength training.

http://youtu.be/EjpxQJ0ykMc?hd=1

JasonDetwiler

Eliminating an entire food group is just plain stupid and eating 'strictly' low-carb will lead you to a prolonged stall. Bottom line, low-carb dieting will lead you to be 'skinny-fat' (small size with a high body fat percentage). You need the carbs to have the energy to lift-weights and burn calories, without them you will look good with clothes on, but 'obese' naked.

Yes because this guy on a very low carb diet clearly lacks the energy to do strength training.

http://youtu.be/EjpxQJ0ykMc?hd=1

Can't see the video, but my coworker and I went to the Bod Pod yesterday. He's in a prolonged stall from eating low carb for a year. Poor guy just can't seem to get under 5.3% body fat at 49 years old. He can do 30 pullups and run marathons. The poor guy even did a 5k fasted and couldn't even break 15 minutes. He's probably going to die soon.

mmapags

I have cut out my starches from my carb intake , but not all my carbs, because there are good carbs.

And how do you tell a good carb from a bad one? What makes one good and one bad nutritionally and physiologically?

I think when a lot of people say this they mean there are certain carbs that spike your blood sugar and others that don't and keep it steady or "slower release". There is a difference between carbs, anyone that is diabetic or been told to restrict there carbs have probably all been told the same thing - get rid of white refined carbs. This is what most people refer to as bad carbs. You may be able to eat these kinds of carbs and have success, but a lot of people can't, and some just flat out choose not to. A lot of people believe that yes a grain in it's whole form or beans are going to be better carbs to choose to eat because they are nutrient dense, compared to others that get stripped of them in the processing of the product they are in.


I have PCOS and was highly recommended to follow low carb. But there are many different ways to do low carb. When I did it in the past, I ate what I wanted as long as it had no carbs. I didn't care how processed it was, or how high cal, just watched the carbs, which means my body was probably severely malnourished. And almost every PCOS site I have been on has said the same thing - cut out processed food, eat lots of nutrient dense foods like whole grains, veggies, etc. Ever since I cut out the processed and started cooking and eating healthy foods, everything has changed for me, not just speaking of weight loss.

Some people choose to do more then just worry about cals in cals out because it strictly applies to WEIGHT LOSS and just seeing the number go down on the scale may be a side benefit for them, not the major one. Yes if you are at a calorie deficit you will lose weight, but people have ailments to fix and illnesses to cure and follow more structure specific approaches for these reasons, not just for weight loss.

Sorry to the person I quoted, was just kinda going off your question and my thoughts kept coming lol

No prob at all. I jut have an issue with the labeling of things as good or bad. So, if you are diabetic or have insulin sensitivity issues it could make a difference what kind of carbs you intake but for the rest of us, beyond some common sense, carbs are not good and bad. Some may be nutrient dense and some not though.

I think if you follow the maxims of eating a well balanced mix of macronutriets and 80% of the time do that with nutrient dense food you are fine and don't need to label things "good" and "bad". I am neither an opponent nor a proponent of low carb diets. They are beneficial for some not so much for others. Most research shows that they are not better than other methods for long term weight loss but, in fairness, there is a dearth of quality research on the subject as noted by Steve Troutman on his site and Kreiger on his. If people can stay on a low carb diet indefinitly and can lose on it and be happy eating in that manner, by all mean. It is not however a universal solution.

wfte

Eliminating an entire food group is just plain stupid and eating 'strictly' low-carb will lead you to a prolonged stall. Bottom line, low-carb dieting will lead you to be 'skinny-fat' (small size with a high body fat percentage). You need the carbs to have the energy to lift-weights and burn calories, without them you will look good with clothes on, but 'obese' naked.

Yes because this guy on a very low carb diet clearly lacks the energy to do strength training.

http://youtu.be/EjpxQJ0ykMc?hd=1

Can't see the video, but my coworker and I went to the Bod Pod yesterday. He's in a prolonged stall from eating low carb for a year. Poor guy just can't seem to get under 5.3% body fat at 49 years old. He can do 30 pullups and run marathons. The poor guy even did a 5k fasted and couldn't even break 15 minutes. He's probably going to die soon.

I'm assuming\hoping this comment is suffering from the internets poor ability to portray sarcasm.

CATindeeHAT

Low-Carb dieting has made it possible for me to lose weight. HOWEVER, I plateaued for close to 2 years until recently when I started to re-incorporate carbohydrates back into my diet (in moderation). I never go over 150 grams of carbohydrates a day, I have started weight-lifting and intense cardio conditioning, and have upped my protein. My scale continues to go down.

Keep in mind though that I am type 2 diabetic.

Eliminating an entire food group is just plain stupid and eating 'strictly' low-carb will lead you to a prolonged stall. Bottom line, low-carb dieting will lead you to be 'skinny-fat' (small size with a high body fat percentage). You need the carbs to have the energy to lift-weights and burn calories, without them you will look good with clothes on, but 'obese' naked.

[img]http://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/i428/eKittyCouture/Blog Graphics/a0c4fb206461849a55f67f632e0e6d34_zps562657a1.jpg[/img]