Low carb diets?
Replies
-
Maybe if you have energy on it. Tried it, sucked each day I worked out, I could barely run. I ended up binging out of deprivation. If you're fine with being deprived unless you really love eating just eggs, nuts, meat & protein shakes.. and can handle ketosis and the lower energy levels, great. Not for me.0
-
I love eating low carb! I consume around 1300 calories a day and try to work out three times a week. I am loosing weight consistantly and have a lot of energy and feel great. I especially feel better with cutting wheat out of my diet. A good book to read is The Wheat Belly.
0 -
Spartan_Maker have you read the the post from KatasticCat?
Insulin is NOT responsible for fat storage. ... Fat can travel and store itself in fat tissue all by itself, no insulin required.
Insulin is NOT responsible for fat storage. It is responsible for the activity of lipoprotein lipases which break fats down to fatty acids.
Fat Storage
...fat in the body is broken down and rebuilt into chylomicrons, which enter the bloodstream by way of the lymphatic system.
Insulin
When you eat a candy bar or a meal... Insulin tells the cells to do the following:
-Absorb glucose, fatty acids and amino acids
-Start building glycogen from glucose; fats (triglycerides) from glycerol and fatty acids; and proteins from amino acids
The activity of lipoprotein lipases depends upon the levels of insulin in the body. If insulin is high, then the lipases are highly active; if insulin is low, the lipases are inactive.
The fatty acids are then absorbed from the blood into fat cells, muscle cells and liver cells. In these cells, under stimulation by insulin, fatty acids are made into fat molecules and stored as fat droplets.
In case you missed it... you quoted: The fatty acids are then absorbed from the blood into fat cells, muscle cells and liver cells. In these cells, under stimulation by insulin, fatty acids are made into fat molecules and stored as fat droplets.
and then you want to say
?Insulin is NOT responsible for fat storage
You just screen munched from:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/fat-cell2.htm
You just screen munced without reading/understanding what was written.0 -
They offer nothing, I did it for 2 weeks. Nothing really changed in weight loss department I use to get tired easily my mood would be all over the place and I just ate heaps of carbs later on down the track. In the 2012 Olympics a trainer said to his swimmer he couldn't eat any carbs for a year leading up to the Olympics he came 6th. Just goes to show its pointless but hey everyone is different0
-
Insulin is NOT responsible for fat storage. Insulin downregulates fat burning, as you've just eaten, and your body is switching to the food you've eaten as your main energy source. Insulin's main anabolic responsibility is to transport glucose into muscle tissue and vital organs, and regulate growth hormone and IGF-1. Fat can travel and store itself in fat tissue all by itself, no insulin required.
Also, the average person carries roughly 12 pounds of glycogen/water. That is a significant amount of weight lost. A low carb diet depletes glycogen stores, as you use more glycogen than your body can replenish (the body converts protein to glucose through gluconeogenesis, but gluconeogenesis doesn't replenish glycogen supplies, as the body only converts as much as is minimally necessary to function.) This is why most people on low carb for extended periods of time have diminished athletic performance, a lack of stored glycogen. It's also why short term low carb diets tend to show a higher total weight loss than a more balanced diet, it's a front loading of water weight as the glycogen is depleted (which takes roughly 24 hours or so.)
I agree with
, but that is partly due to the suppression of hGH (read: Effects of growth hormone on glucose, lipid, and protein metabolism in human subjects. available from:Insulin downregulates fat burning
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19240267 )
--> not 100% true.Insulin's main anabolic responsibility is to transport glucose into muscle tissue
Liver glycogen replenishment also has a high priority as liver glycogen release is used to fuel the brain that can only use glucose (derived from liver glycogen) as energy when the body is not in ketosis (the only alternative brain energy source)
Also muscle cells only absorbing glucose will surely not be the reason for anabolism as we know you need the amino acids (from "complete proteins") to create an anabolic environment in the cell. And as your friend stated:
which is true.Insulin tells the cells to do the following: ... -Absorb glucose, fatty acids and amino acids
---> Well is it 12 pounds of glycogen + water, glycogen OR water or is it the glycogen molecule bound to water? This is a bold statement and I might be wrong, but could you state your source for this information?the average person carries roughly 12 pounds of glycogen/water
If you read from more credible sources (such as Glycogen storage capacity and de novo lipogenesis during massive carbohydrate overfeeding in man. available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3165600 ) you will see the figure is closer to 500 g ( or 1.1 pounds for the Americans
) not 12 pounds.
Not a given. This could happen if the body is not fat adapted and is still dependent on glucose as its primary source of energy.A low carb diet depletes glycogen stores
Yes, because they do not know how to effectively train their bodies to use fat as their primary fuel source.This is why most people on low carb for extended periods of time have diminished athletic performance
Read The Primal Blueprint, it will help in understanding this concept.0 -
In case you missed it...
You just screen munched from:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/human-biology/fat-cell2.htm
You just screen munced without reading/understanding what was written.
I absolutely screen munched. Any idiot with a search browser knows that.
Their website explains so eloquently how insulin IS NOT solely to blame for fat accumulation. It is a VERY complicated system that YOU are misunderstanding.
Oh, and in case you missed...
The conversion of carbohydrates or protein into fat is 10 times less efficient than simply storing fat in a fat cell, but the body can do it. If you have 100 extra calories in fat (about 11 grams) floating in your bloodstream, fat cells can store it using only 2.5 calories of energy. On the other hand, if you have 100 extra calories in glucose (about 25 grams) floating in your bloodstream, it takes 23 calories of energy to convert the glucose into fat and then store it. Given a choice, a fat cell will grab the fat and store it rather than the carbohydrates because fat is so much easier to store.0 -
It's not a euphemism. There are just as many people on here working on bodybuilding as well people trying to gain weight as there are people trying to lose weight."The name of the site is MyFITNESSpal not MyObesityPal or MyWeightLossPal." Yes, it's called a euphemism.
To belabor the obvious, I'm one of those people, and to the extent that it's important at all, we're a significant minority, at best.
lol I vote euphemism
Same here... initially all I wanted was too loose weight (reduce body fat %, to be more precise) and after I achieved that goal I switched to adding lean muscle mass so I no longer use MFP for the initial intended purpose as it is a useful tool for both.0 -
I agree it is a complicated matter. But look at how you have made a fundamental change to your statementTheir website explains so eloquently how insulin IS NOT solely to blame for fat accumulation. It is a VERY complicated system that YOU are misunderstanding.
All I wanted to point out was that it can increase stored body fat.insulin IS NOT solely to blame for fat accumulation
I missed this because it was not relevant to fat being stored by insulin. Here you are merely saying that fat cells have a preference of storing fat over protein and carbs (kinda obvious) and that energy needs to be spent to convert protein/carbs into fat. You are dressing a whole different ball game here.Oh, and in case you missed...
The conversion of carbohydrates or protein into fat is 10 times less efficient than simply storing fat in a fat cell, but the body can do it. If you have 100 extra calories in fat (about 11 grams) floating in your bloodstream, fat cells can store it using only 2.5 calories of energy. On the other hand, if you have 100 extra calories in glucose (about 25 grams) floating in your bloodstream, it takes 23 calories of energy to convert the glucose into fat and then store it. Given a choice, a fat cell will grab the fat and store it rather than the carbohydrates because fat is so much easier to store.
I'm sorry I don't intend on stepping on your toes, but that is not really a good source for complicated topics like this. They water down a lot of the specific details so that it would be easier for laymen to get an idea of what happens. Rather go for text books and peer review articles. (and bare in mind they also don't always have it correct, that's the nature of science. We just try to explain things as best we can with our current knowledge and keep on working on improving it) 0 -
There are numerous studies out there promoting carbohydrate restriction diets, they work flawlessly; they can be a bit much for a first timer though, a step up would be carb cycling, playing with your macros throughout the week in a controlled manner adjusting carbohydrates as you go along depending on activity. I've done and continue to do a low carb cycling diet, i can maintain, bulk and cut while doing this. If you'd like specifics on a low carb, ketogenic or cycle let me know, i'd be glad to help guide you.
-Dan0 -
Ketosis works wonders for my body.0
-
Diets are doomed to failure, developing an eating pattern that is easy to stick to for the rest of your life is the only way to go.
:huh: How is an eating pattern, whether short term or long term, not a diet??0 -
The conversion of carbohydrates or protein into fat is 10 times less efficient than simply storing fat in a fat cell, but the body can do it. If you have 100 extra calories in fat (about 11 grams) floating in your bloodstream, fat cells can store it using only 2.5 calories of energy. On the other hand, if you have 100 extra calories in glucose (about 25 grams) floating in your bloodstream, it takes 23 calories of energy to convert the glucose into fat and then store it. Given a choice, a fat cell will grab the fat and store it rather than the carbohydrates because fat is so much easier to store.
If that were the case, low carb, moderate-high fat diets wouldn't work...............and they do..................0 -
Well, yeah, that way you would. But how many of us are actually going to burn 2300 calories in a day?
What I'm saying is that when you exercise, the majority of what you are burning is carbs. It takes 30 minutes or more usually before you even begin burning fat deposit. So, if you don't have any carbs to burn, you'll just burn fat instead. That is essentially what ketosis is
I burn about 2700 a day. Carbs are 50% of my calories. So far, I have averaged 2-3 pounds lost per week.0 -
Well, yeah, that way you would. But how many of us are actually going to burn 2300 calories in a day?
What I'm saying is that when you exercise, the majority of what you are burning is carbs. It takes 30 minutes or more usually before you even begin burning fat deposit. So, if you don't have any carbs to burn, you'll just burn fat instead. That is essentially what ketosis is
You burn a ratio of carbs and fat. If you are strength training, you are signaling your body to burn a higher ratio of fat. And if you are in a calorie deficit, then your body has no choice but to turn to fat stores for reserved energy.0 -
I can only speak for myself and my experience is this...I lost 75 pounds in 6 months low-carbing & felt great. I didn't count calories because I ate when I was hungry, the real kind of hunger - not the false hunger you get when you're eating sugar, breads & starches. I had tons of energy and I've never eaten so many veggies as I did while low carbing, I think thats the biggest misconception. You need to try it and see if it works for you and if not, try something else. It isn't easy at first but after the first week, I had zero problems. Once you get the carbs out of your system, you don't have the cravings anymore.
My doctor told me that I will be on some sort of low-carb diet for the rest of my life, its just how I'm built so there must be something to it...aside from all of the cookbooks & support groups all over the world. (FYI, Low-Carb Gourmet by Karen Barnaby is a FANTASTIC cookbook.)
Good luck to you!0 -
OP: What you are talking about is the Ketosis Diet.
The idea is that you eat below 100grams of carbs a day to put your body into a state of ketosis. in this state your body burns fat for energy because of the carb deficiency (this only kicks in after about 2 weeks). If this is something you're interested in I would suggest reading up about it, or search for the topic in food and nutrition, I posted about it and got some good responses.
(I have been doing it for over two weeks now and it is going well so far, but it depends entirely on each individual)0 -
Diets are doomed to failure, developing an eating pattern that is easy to stick to for the rest of your life is the only way to go.
:huh: How is an eating pattern, whether short term or long term, not a diet??
:laugh:
Exactly!
I love my new diet! I get twice the protein that I used to take in, and I still eat plenty of carbohydrates and fats. I eat my favorite foods while nourishing my body. Also, I exercise regularly. including both strength training and cardio. My new diet is sustainable in the long-term because it is balanced, easy, affordable, and super-yummy! Barring any unforeseen medical problems in the future, this diet is a keeper! :bigsmile:
ETA: My energy is through the roof without any supplements! I used to take supplements for energy, but I don't need them anymore. I feel better than I have since I was a teenager!0 -
OP: What you are talking about is the Ketosis Diet.
The idea is that you eat below 100grams of carbs a day to put your body into a state of ketosis. in this state your body burns fat for energy because of the carb deficiency (this only kicks in after about 2 weeks). If this is something you're interested in I would suggest reading up about it, or search for the topic in food and nutrition, I posted about it and got some good responses.
(I have been doing it for over two weeks now and it is going well so far, but it depends entirely on each individual)
I think you need to be way below to go into ketosis. When i did extremely low carb in the past was the only time I have gone into ketosis and that was eating about 20g carbs a day. I eat 100-120 a day, netting below because of fiber and I don't go into ketosis. Not all low carb eating puts you into ketosis, just to clarify.0 -
They offer nothing, I did it for 2 weeks. Nothing really changed in weight loss department I use to get tired easily my mood would be all over the place and I just ate heaps of carbs later on down the track. In the 2012 Olympics a trainer said to his swimmer he couldn't eat any carbs for a year leading up to the Olympics he came 6th. Just goes to show its pointless but hey everyone is different
You did it wrong for 2 weeks and gave up. You have to tough it out to adjust to ketosis, not revert back to eating tons of carbs later down the track. That doesn't mean it's pointless, it means you did it wrong.
Anyone training an OIympic swimmer on no carbs is a moron. Swimmers train exhaustively and in most cases need to eat copious amounts of carbs to fuel their sport specific training. They also tend to be extremely low in body fat, so a diet to reduce body fat is, for them, pointless. If any part of the swimmer story is true, I'd venture to guess that the swimmer in question got out of shape and put on some pudge in between training cycles and the coach put him on low-carb for a time to get him back to swimming shape. But even so, look at your statement: He went low carb and finished sixth. So he was on this pointless, energy sucking, low carb diet and STILL MANAGED TO BE THE SIXTH FASTEST SWIMMER IN THE WORLD. What about the other 99.9999% of swimmers who weren't low carb? Why didn't they smoke him?
For most people it is not pointless, as you say everyone's different, it works when done correctly. It's not the only way, but it does work and works quite well when done correctly by someone who is dedicated and disciplined enough.0 -
I do low carb and I love it, Ive lost a load of weight and am full of energy. This is without any hard exercise due to injuries. I walk & cycle a fair bit though.
Im gluten intolerent so I started by cutting that out and then dropped to around 60g carbs a day. I think gradually cutting out is the best way and much less of a shock!
I feel a lot better eating this way and I mainly think thats due to lack of bloating / sickness from bread etc.
That said, I do think its different for everyone and the sensible thing is to find an eating plan that works out for you 0 -
well, ive pretty much decided im staying with this "lifestyle" i would work out so hard, play around with different calorie limits...reduce fats, up my protein etc etc...and i didnt lose weight.
then i stopped eating bread and rice.....whoosh! the weight came off!0 -
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.
*facepalm*0 -
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.
*facepalm*
*facepalm* <--- BAHAHA I love this.0 -
EARLYXR - YOUR COMMENTS MAKE SO MUCH SENSE0
-
"Ok, but what about the dietary fat you eat in place of the carbs that your body burns instead of the stored fat? Or the protein that you eat that gets converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis to make up for the lack of carbs? You're seriously over simplifying the way the body utilizes energy. And of course, that also completely ignores the hormonal effects of cutting carbs, like the reduction in growth hormone, loss of lean tissue, and possible psychological effects as well.
Also, what do you mean by "how many of us are going to burn 2300 calories?" 2000 calories is what the average person burns in a day, I'm usually around 3000-3500 per day. You do burn calories even when you aren't exercising, after all... What science are you actually studying? "
I'm not really sure how to reply specifically to your quote, but you I don't really eat foods high in fat no matter what. And yeah, it will inevitably get converted to glucose... you need glucose to stay alive. But that conversion requires energy. There have been studies done showing that it does on rats and they lose more weight. I can try to find the specific studies if you'd like. And I don't believe cutting out carbs has "psychological effects". People don't need pasta and bread and processed food to function. I eat plenty of vegetables and fruits, which provides some carbs, but not as many as a full plate of pasta. And yes, I know you burn calories not doing anything. I think the last time I calculated the amount I burn not doing anything, it was about 1200. That means I'd have to burn an additional 1100 to be at the number the other guy was mentioning. And I'm studying biology for my undergrad... what are youuuu actually studying?
I'm not trying to be rude but I don't think you actually know what you are talking about. You are way over-simplifying the body's energy usage.
Say you eat 1500 calories of carbs, and your basal metabolic rate is 1600 calories per day. That means doing nothing, you burn 1600 calories... of the carbs you ate OR the fat you have. Regardless of WHAT you ate, you are making a deficit of 100 calories of energy which your body gets from somewhere else... meaning your fat deposits usually, and eventually your muscles and tissues.
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)
Thermodynamically, (which you said you were curious about) 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. Your body needs a specific amount of energy per day, and will scavenge it from any available material, starting with what you eat, even if you don't eat carbohydrates!!!0 -
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.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)
I have also come across this in the literature, but not that they differ vastlyThermodynamically,... 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. ...
Can you please elaborate on this ?
(Damn, ran out of time.)0 -
Low carb worked realllllly well to get my weight loss going. I lost alot initially. But ultimately I need to calorie count too now. I also have PCOS so I have to follow a low carb diet for life(dr. ordered).0
-
I tried lowering my carbs for a while but it just drove me mad so I stick with the eatwell plate for my balance and it's worked so far - eating between 1400 and 1500 calories a day
0 -
I did low carb for quite a while - and able to eat much lower calories on that. However, since then, most trainers & nutritionists that I have met say that you need the carbs - as long as they are good ones! Be sure to eat whole grain stuff (oatmeal, wheat rice, etc...) Beans are also loaded in carbs, but very healthy for you... I also hear that you will gain weight back rather quickly if you try to re-introduce carbs back into your diet too quickly. I am now trying to somewhat follow Chris Powell's idea (Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition) of the following:
Sunday = Cheat Day (2400 cals maximum)
Monday = Low Day (1200 calories, high fat, low carb)
Tuesday = High Day (1500 calories, low fat, high carb)
Wednesday = Low Day (1200 calories, high fat, low carb)
Thursday = High Day (1500 calories, low fat, high carb)
Friday = Low Day (1200 calories, high fat, low carb)
Saturday = High Day (1500 calories, low fat, high carb)
For this, you end up eating an average of 1,500 calories oer day, and are expected to workout 6 days per week (without eating those calories back). I am enjoying it so far, as I don't miss the carbs when I get them every second day...0 -
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.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)
I have also come across this in the literature, but not that they differ vastlyThermodynamically,... 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. ...
Can you please elaborate on this ?
(Damn, ran out of time.)
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".
Protein and carbs contain around 4 calories per gram. Fat contains 9 calories per gram. This is pretty different (more than two times as much for fat) although you can pick at my word choice if you'd like! If you always ate fatty foods, you'd have to cut back on the sheer amount of food in some cases because they are more dense in calories.
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
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1989409
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2058571
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/81789800
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions