Low carb diets?

Ronngie

My Dr told me to do South Beach, due to a medical condition, and it has been by far the easiest & best "diet" I have ever done. I find it very easy to eat out, and it really reset my taste buds. I'm making much better choices, and I am proud to say we eat very little processed food now. For me, it has been a learning experience and I feel amazing.

Acg67

It doesn't matter, #1 works for me, #2 its a study which validates my point whether you agree or not. This is THE INTERNET.

Funny the study you posted, bodyweight was nearly identical across all 3 diets. Odd seeing as there is such a caloric advantage.
And does a single study really validate your point if the majority of the current literature does not?

Are you aware of any studies that meet the criteria I set forth in my previous post: (1) low carb group is in ketosis (10-30-60); (2) high carb group (50-30-20); (3) protein and calories held constant; (4) food intake was controlled and not self-reported; and (5) subjects were representative of the population-at-large rather than elite athletes or morbidly obese people?

I'm having a difficult time finding such a study and would be very interested to see the results of one set up this way. I'm going to keep searching, but surely you guys who regularly debate this issue must have found something close.

What are you considering as representative of the population at large? There are plenty of studies that meet your first 4 criteria that show no significant difference in fat loss between keto/low carb diets and higher carb diets, but deal with the obese, morbidly obese etc

Spartan_Maker

It doesn't matter, #1 works for me, #2 its a study which validates my point whether you agree or not. This is THE INTERNET.

Funny the study you posted, bodyweight was nearly identical across all 3 diets. Odd seeing as there is such a caloric advantage.
And does a single study really validate your point if the majority of the current literature does not?

Are you aware of any studies that meet the criteria I set forth in my previous post: (1) low carb group is in ketosis (10-30-60); (2) high carb group (50-30-20); (3) protein and calories held constant; (4) food intake was controlled and not self-reported; and (5) subjects were representative of the population-at-large rather than elite athletes or morbidly obese people?

I'm having a difficult time finding such a study and would be very interested to see the results of one set up this way. I'm going to keep searching, but surely you guys who regularly debate this issue must have found something close.

What are you considering as representative of the population at large? There are plenty of studies that meet your first 4 criteria that show no significant difference in fat loss between keto/low carb diets and higher carb diets, but deal with the obese, morbidly obese etc

Perfect. If you have the citations to those studies, I'd like to take a look at them because if the other criteria are met, studies on the obese would at least be instructive. In particular, I'd be most interested in any study that has a macro breakdown close to what I've set forth. I want to feel confident that the people were in ketosis. I have no interest in studies where the low carb group was getting more than 15% of their calories from carbohydrates or less than 55% of their calories from fat. Equally important, I don't want any studies where food was self-reported.

Acg67

It doesn't matter, #1 works for me, #2 its a study which validates my point whether you agree or not. This is THE INTERNET.

Funny the study you posted, bodyweight was nearly identical across all 3 diets. Odd seeing as there is such a caloric advantage.
And does a single study really validate your point if the majority of the current literature does not?

Are you aware of any studies that meet the criteria I set forth in my previous post: (1) low carb group is in ketosis (10-30-60); (2) high carb group (50-30-20); (3) protein and calories held constant; (4) food intake was controlled and not self-reported; and (5) subjects were representative of the population-at-large rather than elite athletes or morbidly obese people?

I'm having a difficult time finding such a study and would be very interested to see the results of one set up this way. I'm going to keep searching, but surely you guys who regularly debate this issue must have found something close.

What are you considering as representative of the population at large? There are plenty of studies that meet your first 4 criteria that show no significant difference in fat loss between keto/low carb diets and higher carb diets, but deal with the obese, morbidly obese etc

Perfect. If you have the citations to those studies, I'd like to take a look at them because if the other criteria are met, studies on the obese would at least be instructive. In particular, I'd be most interested in any study that has a macro breakdown close to what I've set forth. I want to feel confident that the people were in ketosis. I have no interest in studies where the low carb group was getting more than 15% of their calories from carbohydrates or less than 55% of their calories from fat. Equally important, I don't want any studies where food was self-reported.

This one is close to the macro breakdown you listed

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/63/2/174.full.pdf+html

mmapags

It doesn't matter, #1 works for me, #2 its a study which validates my point whether you agree or not. This is THE INTERNET.

Funny the study you posted, bodyweight was nearly identical across all 3 diets. Odd seeing as there is such a caloric advantage.
And does a single study really validate your point if the majority of the current literature does not?

Are you aware of any studies that meet the criteria I set forth in my previous post: (1) low carb group is in ketosis (10-30-60); (2) high carb group (50-30-20); (3) protein and calories held constant; (4) food intake was controlled and not self-reported; and (5) subjects were representative of the population-at-large rather than elite athletes or morbidly obese people?

I'm having a difficult time finding such a study and would be very interested to see the results of one set up this way. I'm going to keep searching, but surely you guys who regularly debate this issue must have found something close.

The more I consider the issues in this thread, the more I think a low-carb diet should be the default diet for most people on MFP. In the last two days, I've read several times that 25% of adults in the U.S. are thought to be insulin resistant. If it's that bad among the general population, it's almost assuredly at least that high among MFP members. I'd feel pretty guilt about potentially dissuading a large number of people who may unknowingly be insulin resistant from pursuing a diet that would most certainly benefit them, if not save their lives. More important, the corrolary to that isn't something I'd want on my conscience.

So let me see if I have your logic straight. Because 25% of the US population (and I'm taking your number at face value) may be insulin resistant, low carb should be the default diet for 80% to 90% (most) of the population?? A little overkill don't you think? A little managing by the exception? A little tail wagging the dog? And that's if you assume that the only way to improve insulin resistance is a low carb diet. It is a strategy. Is it the only one? Kinda extreme, no?

Edited to add, rereading, you said most not all so, in fairness, I changed the % above.

Spartan_Maker

It doesn't matter, #1 works for me, #2 its a study which validates my point whether you agree or not. This is THE INTERNET.

Funny the study you posted, bodyweight was nearly identical across all 3 diets. Odd seeing as there is such a caloric advantage.
And does a single study really validate your point if the majority of the current literature does not?

Are you aware of any studies that meet the criteria I set forth in my previous post: (1) low carb group is in ketosis (10-30-60); (2) high carb group (50-30-20); (3) protein and calories held constant; (4) food intake was controlled and not self-reported; and (5) subjects were representative of the population-at-large rather than elite athletes or morbidly obese people?

I'm having a difficult time finding such a study and would be very interested to see the results of one set up this way. I'm going to keep searching, but surely you guys who regularly debate this issue must have found something close.

What are you considering as representative of the population at large? There are plenty of studies that meet your first 4 criteria that show no significant difference in fat loss between keto/low carb diets and higher carb diets, but deal with the obese, morbidly obese etc

Perfect. If you have the citations to those studies, I'd like to take a look at them because if the other criteria are met, studies on the obese would at least be instructive. In particular, I'd be most interested in any study that has a macro breakdown close to what I've set forth. I want to feel confident that the people were in ketosis. I have no interest in studies where the low carb group was getting more than 15% of their calories from carbohydrates or less than 55% of their calories from fat. Equally important, I don't want any studies where food was self-reported.

This one is close to the macro breakdown you listed

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/63/2/174.full.pdf+html

This is the kind of study I wanted to read; however, I wish it was longer than 6 weeks and that they hadn't made them do 1 hour of aerobic activity each day.

The low carb group, especially on a diet with so few calories, almost certainly experienced amino acid wasting through gluconeogenesis, unless the aerobic activity was just some walking, which I doubt. Plus, there was probably quite a bit of gluconeogenesis going on during the first 3 weeks for the low carb group as they became keto adapted. In the absence of ketosis, the brain alone requires about 150 grams of carbs to function. These people were getting about 38 grams of carbs a day.

In sum, then, even though they were at a competitive disadvantage, the low carb group still outperformed the low fat group, albeit not in a statistically significant way. I'm inclined to believe that if this study was 12 weeks long, that gap may have widened quite a bit.

CATindeeHAT

Hey girl,

A lot of people have a bone to pick with low-carb diets. In my experience, more men strongly oppose low-carb diets than women. Personally, I have a hunch that eating low-carb may work better for/ have different effects on women than men simply because of the hormone interaction of the diet - and no, my hunch is not founded, nor have I come across any studies that suggest it, its simply a 'hunch'. Hopefully, future studies will look into that topic specifically, but all that is a completely different topic.

There are a TON of studies regarding low-carb dieting, if you're really interested I would look into them. Unfortunately, there are few studies looking at the diet and long-term consequences, but they're working on it!

Bottom line is if it works for you then it works for you.

If you eat 50% carbs, 30% protein, 20% fat and lose weight + feel great - awesome job!
If you eat 10% carbs, 50% protein, 40% fat and lose weight + feel great - great for you!
If you eat 80% carbs, 10% protein, 10% fat and lose weight + feel great - you're a machine!

To each his own.

When it comes to me I am type II diabetic and a low-carb diet is the only way I can lose/maintain my weight and have an overall good sense of well-being.

P.S. I too am studying the life sciences.

Froody2

Meh, this arguement will go on until the end of time, with no resolution one way or the other. Having said that, my two cents 'orth - low carb is very difficult to maintain long term. A balanced, low GI diet is close to the way I normally eat anyway so long term will be easier to maintain.

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.

CATindeeHAT

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.

Amen.

Spartan_Maker

It doesn't matter, #1 works for me, #2 its a study which validates my point whether you agree or not. This is THE INTERNET.

Funny the study you posted, bodyweight was nearly identical across all 3 diets. Odd seeing as there is such a caloric advantage.
And does a single study really validate your point if the majority of the current literature does not?

Are you aware of any studies that meet the criteria I set forth in my previous post: (1) low carb group is in ketosis (10-30-60); (2) high carb group (50-30-20); (3) protein and calories held constant; (4) food intake was controlled and not self-reported; and (5) subjects were representative of the population-at-large rather than elite athletes or morbidly obese people?

I'm having a difficult time finding such a study and would be very interested to see the results of one set up this way. I'm going to keep searching, but surely you guys who regularly debate this issue must have found something close.

The more I consider the issues in this thread, the more I think a low-carb diet should be the default diet for most people on MFP. In the last two days, I've read several times that 25% of adults in the U.S. are thought to be insulin resistant. If it's that bad among the general population, it's almost assuredly at least that high among MFP members. I'd feel pretty guilt about potentially dissuading a large number of people who may unknowingly be insulin resistant from pursuing a diet that would most certainly benefit them, if not save their lives. More important, the corrolary to that isn't something I'd want on my conscience.

So let me see if I have your logic straight. Because 25% of the US population (and I'm taking your number at face value) may be insulin resistant, low carb should be the default diet for 80% to 90% (most) of the population?? A little overkill don't you think? A little managing by the exception? A little tail wagging the dog? And that's if you assume that the only way to improve insulin resistance is a low carb diet. It is a strategy. Is it the only one? Kinda extreme, no?

Edited to add, rereading, you said most not all so, in fairness, I changed the % above.

I'd like to resist patronizing you and not parse my own sentence, but if I don't, I fear we might waste another five posts on trifling distractions.

I wrote: "The more I consider the issues in this thread, the more I think a low-carb diet should be the default diet for most people on MFP." The next few sentences add context to this sentence.

"Default," in this context, means first option, as in "default option." "Most," in this context, means the majority of MFP members, because as currently defined, nearly everyone is obese. In fact, at 6'0", 206 lbs., and 16% body fat, I'm obese according to BMI.

Unless you dispute that obese people (especially morbidly obese people) should concern themselves with the possibility that they are insulin resistant, you'd do well not to discourage them from considering a low-carb diet; that's the entire point of that paragraph. In fact, now that you've brought attention to it, I'd say anything that might discourage them is being complicit in affirmatively harming them.

lilRicki

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.

The 'tribal' knowledge you refer to is dished out by people such as ACG because of the thousands of times he has had to repeat himself, quoting studies, references and articles. If you were to look back, there's plenty of information backed up with scientifically reviewed publications.

John Kiefer made me a believer...i'm carb cycling right now for various reasons. 1) I've been doing this for almost 3 years and I haven't lost anything. 2) I've been to the doctor and all he can tell me is my cortisol is high 3) I'm a carb junkie. So I'm doing Carb Nite Solution to see if it's the mass amount of carbs i suck in, and I have to admit, I feel a lot better. I still have a long way to go in the cycling but the first 10 days are gone and I'm not bloated or lethargic and I'm eating WAY better. Like you, i need scientific proof, but really are you going to read 20 000 articles to back up your hypothesis? I haven't read 20 000 peer reviewed medical articles, but I have read a few and John Kiefer makes sense.

mmapags

So let me see if I have your logic straight. Because 25% of the US population (and I'm taking your number at face value) may be insulin resistant, low carb should be the default diet for 80% to 90% (most) of the population?? A little overkill don't you think? A little managing by the exception? A little tail wagging the dog? And that's if you assume that the only way to improve insulin resistance is a low carb diet. It is a strategy. Is it the only one? Kinda extreme, no?

Edited to add, rereading, you said most not all so, in fairness, I changed the % above.

I'd like to resist patronizing you and not parse my own sentence, but if I don't, I fear we might waste another five posts on trifling distractions.

I wrote: "The more I consider the issues in this thread, the more I think a low-carb diet should be the default diet for most people on MFP." The next few sentences add context to this sentence.

"Default," in this context, means first option, as in "default option." "Most," in this context, means the majority of MFP members, because as currently defined, nearly everyone is obese. In fact, at 6'0", 206 lbs., and 16% body fat, I'm obese according to BMI.

Unless you dispute that obese people (especially morbidly obese people) should concern themselves with the possibility that they are insulin resistant, you'd do well not to discourage them from considering a low-carb diet; that's the entire point of that paragraph. In fact, now that you've brought attention to it, I'd say anything that might discourage them is being complicit in affirmatively harming them.

Yes, I understand that is how you view it because you are a low carb advocate. I think there are many reasons why people are overweight. Insulin resistance should be considered as one reason but by no means a "universal" reason. I think your logic makes some leaps based on you bias. FTR, I am not in opposition to low carb as a tool for SOME. It's when it starts getting advocated as some kind of universal solution that I think is faulty thinking. That seems to be your position.

Edited to add: Do you really think BMI is a useful measure? Would you consider yourself obese? Also, by what measure are you considering "the majority of MFP members, because as currently defined, nearly everyone is obese. "? That may or may not be true. You are stating it as a factual assumption based on what seems like nothing more than your opinion. The name of the site is MyFITNESSpal not MyObesityPal or MyWeightLossPal. There seems to be many here who are not obese but use this site to manage thier fitness goals.

Spartan_Maker

So let me see if I have your logic straight. Because 25% of the US population (and I'm taking your number at face value) may be insulin resistant, low carb should be the default diet for 80% to 90% (most) of the population?? A little overkill don't you think? A little managing by the exception? A little tail wagging the dog? And that's if you assume that the only way to improve insulin resistance is a low carb diet. It is a strategy. Is it the only one? Kinda extreme, no?

Edited to add, rereading, you said most not all so, in fairness, I changed the % above.

I'd like to resist patronizing you and not parse my own sentence, but if I don't, I fear we might waste another five posts on trifling distractions.

I wrote: "The more I consider the issues in this thread, the more I think a low-carb diet should be the default diet for most people on MFP." The next few sentences add context to this sentence.

"Default," in this context, means first option, as in "default option." "Most," in this context, means the majority of MFP members, because as currently defined, nearly everyone is obese. In fact, at 6'0", 206 lbs., and 16% body fat, I'm obese according to BMI.

Unless you dispute that obese people (especially morbidly obese people) should concern themselves with the possibility that they are insulin resistant, you'd do well not to discourage them from considering a low-carb diet; that's the entire point of that paragraph. In fact, now that you've brought attention to it, I'd say anything that might discourage them is being complicit in affirmatively harming them.

Yes, I understand that is how you view it because you are a low carb advocate. I think there are many reasons why people are overweight. Insulin resistance should be considered as one reason but by no means a "universal" reason. I think your logic makes some leaps based on you bias. FTR, I am not in opposition to low carb as a tool for SOME. It's when it starts getting advocated as some kind of universal solution that I think is faulty thinking. That seems to be your position.

Maybe I need to parse all of my posts for you. I'm not a low carb advocate at all. I'm a curious critical thinker who values intellectual honesty.

I'll also exploit any fair advantage I can get. During my nine month so-called "journey," I only used a low carb strategy the first month because I knew it would be especially diuretic and get me to a point where I could comfortably begin an exercise program. For the remaining 8 months, I've been all over the lot, without being meticulous about macro percentages.

I don't have a dog in this fight and to assume that I do means that you heedlessly read what I wrote.

mmapags

No, it means that how you represented yourself. My apologies if I misread. Sure looked that way to me based on your recommedations though.

Spartan_Maker

No, it means that how you represented yourself. My apologies if I misread. Sure looked that way to me based on your recommedations though.

You did misread. I accept your apology.

As for your last edit, humor me.

In response to your questions:

"Do you really think BMI is a useful measure?" For those who aren't black swans -- probably.

"Would you consider yourself obese?" No. I'd consider myself a black swan.

In response to your comment:

"The name of the site is MyFITNESSpal not MyObesityPal or MyWeightLossPal." Yes, it's called a euphemism.

mmapags

Black Swan??

Spartan_Maker

Black Swan??

Far out on the bell curve: even at 6'0", 195, and 11% body fat, I'd be "overweight" using BMI.

mmapags

Black Swan??

Far out on the bell curve: even at 6'0", 195, and 11% body fat, I'd be "overweight" using BMI.

I think you can come up with many exceptions to BMI. So many that it is generally viewed as a less that accurate assesment tool, evern, by many medical professionals. I am 5'9", 198 and 23% BF and I am considered obese also. It's pretty much a useless tool.

tigersword

I love when people either do not know or just ignore the fact that people who eat low carb have a several hundred calorie advantage over lowfat high carb dieters. There are several different metabolic reasons for it.
It is also an effective treatment for type 2 diabetes.

But ignoring this, and several other good reasons to TRY a low carb diet, blindly bashing it is really cool on MFP. I have consistently lost weight when clearly not in a deficit when adhering to LC. 3000 calories a day. Bacon and eggs, ribeye steaks, chicken wings, lots of high fiber low GI veggies. Sometimes it's just hard to not want taters bread and pasta.

Care to explain the wizardry that allows for fat loss while not in a deficit

To be fair, he said weight, not fat. Low carb means losing significant water weight as glycogen levels drop, you don't need to be in a deficit to drop water weight. You do need a deficit to lose fat however. I've also lost 60 pounds of fat eating 3000 calories a day, not cutting carbs, I just burn 3500 calories a day between my active job and exercise regimen.

Care to explain the wizardry that allows for fat loss while not in a deficit ---> When you eat a diet low in carbs you secrete less insulin (the primary anabolic hormone responsible for fat storage) so you sore less fat (this fat can be derived from dietary fat or carbs, However the carbs will only contribute to fat storage if your muscle and liver glycogen is saturated).
Also a comparing two isocaloric diets one with high protein and one with high carb, the thermal effect will greatly contribute to
daily energy expenditure due to the fact that a human body needs to use as much as 25% more energy to digest protein compared to carbs that yields same amount of calories.

"Low carb means losing significant water weight as glycogen levels drop" ---> You do know you dehydrate by only loosing 3% of your bodies water mass? Or do you mean "significant water weight" from the water attached to the glycogen molecules only? That would mean you need to severely deprive your body from its stored energy (muscle and liver glycogen).
This is not a sound explanation.

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.)

tigersword

No, it means that how you represented yourself. My apologies if I misread. Sure looked that way to me based on your recommedations though.

You did misread. I accept your apology.

As for your last edit, humor me.

In response to your questions:

"Do you really think BMI is a useful measure?" For those who aren't black swans -- probably.

"Would you consider yourself obese?" No. I'd consider myself a black swan.

In response to your comment:

"The name of the site is MyFITNESSpal not MyObesityPal or MyWeightLossPal." Yes, it's called a euphemism.

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.