Low carb diets?

wrevhn

I'm actually on Dukan. Its low carb. Which fits my blood type (0 = meat eater/hunter gathers, by Dr. Peter D'Adamo standards), and I have allergies to most grains anyway. Plus I lose more when restricting them. So though some might wish to fight it... it seems to work out just fine for others. I still eat carbs in vegs, fruits and the grains I can handle. Just not an abundance.

Another good option is slow carb.

tnmyers23

So how do you expect to eat low carb and low fat? It sounds like you're looking for an impossible diet. Carbohydrates and fat are the body's main sources of energy, if you aren't eating one, you need to be eating the other.

As for psychological effects, you don't have to "believe it." Do some research, carbs help regulate serotonin levels and other mood hormones, people on low carb diets are consistently found to be more depressed than people who eat higher carb in study after study. Low carb also leads to increased cortisol, as cortisol is one of the regulators of gluconeogenesis, and high cortisol leads to less fat burning and more lean mass loss.
[/quote] QUOTED FROM ABOVE!

With any weight loss journey each person has to find what works for them. For me it is eating low carbs/ lean meats. I have had all the labs done 6 months into this and they were perfect. As for emotional well being I have never felt better. We cannot tell a person unless we are their doctor and have done all the tests what is or isn't going to work for them. Speak about your experiences not what you read or have been told. That is what people need, your experiences and what was bad for one may work for another.

yksdoris

I say do what feels good for your body. My body doesn't crave carbs in bread, pasta or rice, so I only have to "worry" about fruit and sugars...

There was a study fairly recently (though, sadly, I can't find the link back now) where it appreared that in case of exact same caloric intake and physical activity, the people who went with low calories, high proteine diet lost the weight fastest but that diet was also the hardest to keep up after the weight was already lost, and had some health risks. At the same time, people with relatively high carb content (still same calories!) lost the weight slowest AND (!!!) after losing the weight had the hardest time keeping it off.

So, from the study it appeared, that a moderately low carb content and relatively high fat and proteine content speeds up the weight loss but doesn't impact overall health as much as no carbs at all; and, at the same time, keeping the weight off after it's been lost will be easier than going with a high-carb diet.

bu, anyways, that was a study for which I now can't find a link so essentialy another part of bro-science, lol.

I say, as long as you're losing and not forcing anything down your throat, have fun. I don't enjoy carbs that much anyways and would rather exchange them for the little bit extra fat (nuts! avocado! yum!)

Acg67

Explain? I'm a science major, and I don't believe that is true. What I'm interested in is how it plays a role in thermodynamincs

I'm an engineer, so I share your curiosity to expand beyond Cal in/out, and I believe that the body works in far more complex ways than that. I've only been on this site for a day and it seems that the tribal knowledge here discounts cellular response to different types of stimuli and refers to calorie counting as the only factor in losing weight. I think there should be a clear distinction in losing weight versus losing fat, as I'm not concerned about the scale but more so what the calipers say.

If you're looking to do some research, check into John Kiefer. His works cited is always worth checking out and he backs everything up with scientifically reviewed publications.

I agree with this. Mostly everyone on here only focuses on cal in/out but i do think the type of calories matters in fat loss also. Would you still lose weight eating 2000 calories of chocolate a day if you also burn 2000 calories a day? (just talking about losing weight, not nutritional value).

You'd maintain

but if you are eating all chocolate calories, there is not a difference if you would eat all protein calories? i just find this strange.

Certainly there would be a difference with a higher protein diet, which have been shown to have a slight metabolic advantage. However you asked if you ate 2,000 cals and burned 2,000 cals what would happen.

ilovedeadlifts

As for psychological effects, you don't have to "believe it." Do some research, carbs help regulate serotonin levels and other mood hormones, people on low carb diets are consistently found to be more depressed than people who eat higher carb in study after study. Low carb also leads to increased cortisol, as cortisol is one of the regulators of gluconeogenesis, and high cortisol leads to less fat burning and more lean mass loss.

Not always. Cortisol is catabolic. It breaks down tissues, fat included.

It can be a good thing.

PeachyKeene

I don't lose weight unless I'm eating low carb, some plans are lower in net carbs than others, some have more fat, some have more fibre, some have more protein, some have dairy, some have only certain kinds of dairy, some are even vegetarian and not all low carb diets are ketogenic. Some people also call Paleo low carb too.

For me it's about blood sugar, mine is easily all over the place from wholemeal anything. legumes or any other number of "healthy" low fat foods which don't cause problems for them. I'm not diabetic but I am insulin resistant. I can starve myself and I will lose little to no weight at all, regardless of exercise levels. it's not a simple calories in, calories out for me. I can slow my breathing down to a point that would knock most people unconscious. We are not all the same.

"Psychological effects" does not preclude physiological effects on the mind, Parkinson's was originally believed to be all in the mind. Blood sugar effects moods, both nutrition and blood sugar can impact/trigger mental health issues or symptoms (just as stabilising it can stabilise them). Insulin impacts the way we store fat and blood sugar impacts insulin release. Some foods are rich in serotonin and diets rich in these foods can work very well for people who have serotonin imbalances. Studies are also showing promise in the role of amino acids and a number of physiological disorders. Not all of these things can only come from low carb, but it can eliminate issues from other diets lacking in amino acids/serotonin or too high blood sugar.

If you do heavy exercise, you'll need to eat accordingly, just as you will need to if you want to stay in ketosis. It's not for everyone. It's not for heavy drinkers or junk-binge eaters, they'll be stuck forever in an Induction-bust-Induction cycle (presuming they follow the plan).

It's not zero carb (very few people eat zero carb diets, although the term is thrown around a lot - even then, protein can be converted to glycogen) or even 20 net carbs (not carbs, net carbs). Induction is a two week phase of Atkins to get you into ketosis. I lose far more fat in ketosis than I do out of it, while maintaining muscle and fitness. I also lose more weight when I eat more fat. A lot of people don't manage ketosis or nutrition properly, you shouldn't feel tired or lacking in energy, if you do, you're likely eating something that spikes your blood sugar, or not enough food, or not at the right time (sugar hits your blood fast). At least one gold medal has been won by a low carb dieter.

Many clinical studies on "low carb", "high protein" and "high fat" do not match the macros of popular plans (or the fine details, like 100% trans fat in a "high fat" study, which is highly unnatural), check the details of any papers you are reviewing and also how random the selection of subjects is along with pre-existing conditions. Duration is a common item to look for, studies which last a week or so are useless, some people take 2 weeks to get into ketosis. Beware the comparisons of findings from one type of study against a completely different study, such as confusing ketosis with ketoacidosis. All of the findings I have found on saturated fat come from studies on high carb diets with high saturated fat. A lot of the results are skewed from un-random selection and many many studies are funded by the sugar and grain industries. Many studies and nutrition advice in the USA comes from the US Department of Agriculture. Science with a pre-determined agenda is not discovery, although you can rig a lot of studies to get results you'd like, by skipping all the findings that don't support your agenda. Stevia has been used in Japan for years, yet most Western countries refused to allow it for many years. Eskimos have eaten ketogenic diets for centuries, mostly raw food and without scurvy. Read studies about Eskimos carefully, most of them are on Westernised diets.

I don't care whether people "believe" scientific facts or think there is only "one way" for everyone, as the Doctor link previously posted describes, many doctors and scientists have no interest in detail or critical thinking, or of any "fact" from the past being proven wrong, science is constantly learning new things, some of which require un-learning old things. Even negative findings are worthless unless we really understand why and further investigate whether those negative impacts can be removed.

Different people have different needs, different medical conditions, have different budgets, local ingredients, mobility etc.

Some people also struggle with particular ingredients common in other diet plans: caffeine, glycerine, fructose, lactose, gluten, dairy, etc. Some people have different digestion than others, some have permanent metabolic damage from previous diets/medications or were born with metabolic disorders or conditions like Lipoedema which have no known cure.

^^^^ I concur

lauren3101

Why ask for an opinion on something, and then argue with everyone that gives an opinion you don't agree with? There was no point in asking.

My opinion (based on years of attempting low-carb diets and similar) is that anything that requires you to cut out something either completely or a lot is not going to work in the long term, because it is not a realistic way of eating that you can stick to for the rest of your life. If I want chocolate or pasta or bread, I eat it, but I make room for it in my calorie allowance.

warsenic

People really only eat like 20 g of carbs a day?

Spartan_Maker

Explain? I'm a science major, and I don't believe that is true. What I'm interested in is how it plays a role in thermodynamincs

I'm an engineer, so I share your curiosity to expand beyond Cal in/out, and I believe that the body works in far more complex ways than that. I've only been on this site for a day and it seems that the tribal knowledge here discounts cellular response to different types of stimuli and refers to calorie counting as the only factor in losing weight. I think there should be a clear distinction in losing weight versus losing fat, as I'm not concerned about the scale but more so what the calipers say.

If you're looking to do some research, check into John Kiefer. His works cited is always worth checking out and he backs everything up with scientifically reviewed publications.

I agree with this. Mostly everyone on here only focuses on cal in/out but i do think the type of calories matters in fat loss also. Would you still lose weight eating 2000 calories of chocolate a day if you also burn 2000 calories a day? (just talking about losing weight, not nutritional value).

You'd maintain

but if you are eating all chocolate calories, there is not a difference if you would eat all protein calories? i just find this strange.

Your weight would likely stay the same, but your body composition would not be the same; and, it's not only because of more protein. Body composition is affected by macronutrients and micronutrients. Many people overlook the role of micronutrients in body composition. Calcium, for instance, is one of the more obvious examples of a micronutrient that can impact lean mass. Chocolate, however, may or may not have been the best example to use to make that point. I believe chocolate has been implicated as an inhibitor of calcium absorption.

praxisproject

20 NET carbs, not the same as 20 carbs.

lisamarie2181

I tried it, couldn't mentally do it. And I have very strong mental will-power. I'm currently doing the Insanity workout and I never miss a day because I have that much mental will-power, but when I tried low-carb I found myself binging late at night because I wasn't satisfied on eating barely any carbs a day. If you want a quick fix to lose weight, then go for it because it seems to work for everyone. However, if you want to make it a long- term lifestyle then I would really consider if you are willing to do low carb for the rest of your life because once you go low carb then start putting carbs back in your life, you'll just gain the weight back. Think long-term lifestyle change, not just quick fix to lose weight. Even now, I don't ever eat bread or pasta or rice or anything like that, but I love fruits and really couldn't give them up. I think any diet that tells me to give up nutrient-dense oatmeal and 95% of fruits just isn't the diet for me.

It isn't actually the diet that tells you to cut those things out. Many people CHOOSE to stay under the 20g on their own, it is not how the actual program works. Atkins for example has 4 stages, you go so low the first two weeks to rid your body of the sugar cravings and to get your body burning fat instead of carbs, and each stage you add carbs back in, but you add in good carbs like whole grains, beans and more veggies. You find the right amount of carbs that work for your body.

Alot of people with Diabetes and Insulin problems may need to stay that low, it depends on each person. I myself have found I don't need to and I only cut out grains and don't eat fruit so much. The sugar in the fruit sometimes makes me crave sugary things, so I only eat it occasionally.

And as someone else posted, there are not that many people that do absolutely no carb, most people do either a low or moderate amount, so to clump everyone together would be like saying everyone watching calories diets the same, which isn't true. People eat whatever they want to lose, others value nutrients they get from the foods. This is not a fad diet, people choose to use in a fad diet way, just like low cal can be too.

NovoActive

Explain? I'm a science major, and I don't believe that is true. What I'm interested in is how it plays a role in thermodynamincs

I'm an engineer, so I share your curiosity to expand beyond Cal in/out, and I believe that the body works in far more complex ways than that. I've only been on this site for a day and it seems that the tribal knowledge here discounts cellular response to different types of stimuli and refers to calorie counting as the only factor in losing weight. I think there should be a clear distinction in losing weight versus losing fat, as I'm not concerned about the scale but more so what the calipers say.

If you're looking to do some research, check into John Kiefer. His works cited is always worth checking out and he backs everything up with scientifically reviewed publications.

I agree with this. Mostly everyone on here only focuses on cal in/out but i do think the type of calories matters in fat loss also. Would you still lose weight eating 2000 calories of chocolate a day if you also burn 2000 calories a day? (just talking about losing weight, not nutritional value).

You'd maintain

but if you are eating all chocolate calories, there is not a difference if you would eat all protein calories? i just find this strange.

Your weight would likely stay the same, but your body composition would not be the same; and, it's not only because of more protein. Body composition is affected by macronutrients and micronutrients. Many people overlook the role of micronutrients in body composition. Calcium, for instance, is one of the more obvious examples of a micronutrient that can impact lean mass. Chocolate, however, may or may not have been the best example to use to make that point.

Oh my word, what a conglometarion of laymen o_O
*Face palm*

cindyhoney2

I lost 60lbs on Atkins over the course of about a year. I still don't eat bread, pasta, regular potatoes or bread but I limit my carbs to about 100 give or take a day and I feel fine, no ill effects on my end. I really missed eating fruit and I'm addicted to sweet potatoes. Good luck whatever you try I exercise daily now v/s when I was on Atkins and I think I need tohe carbs for energy personally.

PeachyKeene

People really only eat like 20 g of carbs a day?

20 net carbs

Total grams of carbs minus grams of fiber = net carbs

Crochetluvr

The one advantage to having diabetes is no one can admonish me for having a low carb diet

Don't be so sure - http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/10/02/diabetic-transforms-his-health-with-a-low-carb-diet-and-his-doctor-urges-him-to-eat-more-carbs/

As long as MY doctor is pleased with my diet and my sugar readings, thats what's important to me. And I like not having to take medication now.

firstsip

A low carb diet is actually anything between 50-150g of carbs (the daily recommended value is 250-350g, I believe). The whole "20g" carb thing isn't supposed to be permanent on "trendy" diets, but just the first few weeks before gradually upping carbs.

I generally eat low carb because my endocrinologist specifically suggested it, since people with thyroid issues have a harder time with carbs all around (and I don't have a thyroid). I actually saw him last Friday, and he said "Yeah, I recommend 180g of carbs a day, but find people have trouble with it." Well, other than a few "splurge days" (all of which was still under 300g of carbs, and I could count them on one hand over the last several months), I'm generally under 120g... and I don't really think it's contributed to weight loss anymore so than reduced calorie/increased exercise (specifically strength training). I'm much less bloated, though.

nphect

i did the atkins diet and you start out with 20 Grams of carbs a day for the first month or something. It pretty extreme. I lost weight fast but you have to be careful to slowly ease your carbs back in. I think it is perfect for people who don't exercise or have a huge weight problem. The 20 grams of carbs a day is pretty controversial though.

Sarge516

Low carb diet worked (is working) for me. Not NO CARBS, but low carbs. I try to stay around 100g a day.

I did Atkins once (which allows zero carbs). I did no exercise, and I lost a ton of weight fast, but I was miserable, and no zero energy. Needless to say, I gained that all back as soon as I stopped eating the Atkins way. So, I know that lowering carbs works to help me lose weight.

yarwell

I did Atkins once (which allows zero carbs)

Not at all, Atkins Phase 1 is 20g of net carbs ie American "carbohydrates" minus fiber, with 12-15 of them from vegetables.

When people say "no carbs" on here do they mean "no foods which I think of as carbs" or do the mean zero grams of carbohydrate ?

Spartan_Maker

Explain? I'm a science major, and I don't believe that is true. What I'm interested in is how it plays a role in thermodynamincs

I'm an engineer, so I share your curiosity to expand beyond Cal in/out, and I believe that the body works in far more complex ways than that. I've only been on this site for a day and it seems that the tribal knowledge here discounts cellular response to different types of stimuli and refers to calorie counting as the only factor in losing weight. I think there should be a clear distinction in losing weight versus losing fat, as I'm not concerned about the scale but more so what the calipers say.

If you're looking to do some research, check into John Kiefer. His works cited is always worth checking out and he backs everything up with scientifically reviewed publications.

I agree with this. Mostly everyone on here only focuses on cal in/out but i do think the type of calories matters in fat loss also. Would you still lose weight eating 2000 calories of chocolate a day if you also burn 2000 calories a day? (just talking about losing weight, not nutritional value).

You'd maintain

but if you are eating all chocolate calories, there is not a difference if you would eat all protein calories? i just find this strange.

Your weight would likely stay the same, but your body composition would not be the same; and, it's not only because of more protein. Body composition is affected by macronutrients and micronutrients. Many people overlook the role of micronutrients in body composition. Calcium, for instance, is one of the more obvious examples of a micronutrient that can impact lean mass. Chocolate, however, may or may not have been the best example to use to make that point.

Oh my word, what a conglometarion of laymen o_O
*Face palm*

I'm not certain if it's a "conglometarion," but there is a conglomeration of all types on MFP, including in this thread: lawyers, engineers, derivatives traders, students, and recent college grads working toward their first post-graduate degree.