If its really about calories then explain to me why.....

gpinzone

LOL then why is there no significant difference in fat loss when cals and protein are held constant?

But there is a significant difference assuming you don't starve everyone in the process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711

Oh and here's a fun one

Presence or absence of carbohydrates and the proportion of fat in a high-protein diet affect appetite suppression but not energy expenditure in normal-weight human subjects fed in energy balance

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999

That was fun! A three day study based on questionnaires. Did you read it beyond the title?

How common is DNL in humans?

http://bit.ly/WvOcGZ

Acg67

LOL then why is there no significant difference in fat loss when cals and protein are held constant?

But there is a significant difference assuming you don't starve everyone in the process. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711[/quote]

LMAO. the A to Z weight loss study, were cals or protein held constant? Oh and dietary recall for the obese, I'm sure that is accurate.

That was fun! A three day study based on questionnaires. Did you read it beyond the title?

I have the full study on my work comp, try reading it again and what was measured and what the results were. Amazingly the 0 carb diet didn't turbocharge their metabolism

http://bit.ly/WvOcGZ

Strong answer

kgrubbhunt12

Ask your doctor, or a dietian. They will give you an educated answer. If you are on this board trying to promote a carb restricted diet, then get off this thread. If you are truely trying to find out this answer, seek advice from a professional.

Acg67

Also very similar to the A to Z study but totally different results

Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200094

gpinzone

LMAO. the A to Z weight loss study, were cals or protein held constant? Oh and dietary recall for the obese, I'm sure that is accurate.

Dietary recall is poor. The difference is with the A TO Z study, they weren't attempting to make precise measurements of metabolic differences. It's not like one group was more likely to lie than the other. It was a test to see how the diets would perform "in the real world" without constant monitoring. The results are clear: Atkins wins hands down.

I have the full study on my work comp, try reading it again and what was measured and what the results were. Amazingly the 0 carb diet didn't turbocharge their metabolism

I guess if you are shooting for a three day diet and exercise plan and are already "healthy normal-weight" (as per the paper), your options are pretty good!

http://bit.ly/WvOcGZ

Strong answer

Quite.

Griffin220x

Well it's bedtime, I'm bumping this thread for later because I've only made it to page 5. Can't wait to how things play out. Also I did a bit of research. And found one article that lead me to two other supporting sources and I may give this diet a try to change things up a bit.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319&cpage=2#comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

http://okinawa-diet.com/okinawa_diet/okinawa_diet_food_pyramid.html

Also please add me!!! I'd love to discuss nutrition and weight training.

gpinzone

Also very similar to the A to Z study but totally different results

Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200094

It's not different results. The people who lost more weight lowered improved their HDL/LDL ratio more. What they did is normalize all the people to see if there was some other factor in the diet besides weight loss improved that ratio. So even if there were twice as many Atkins dieters that lost 20 pounds than Ornish, they counted each as a two identical groups. The other thing they neglected to look at was triglycerides. HDL/Triglyceride ratio, which is a marker for metabolic disorder and obesity was best in the Atkins group.

Please stop posting studies that cherry pick data.

gpinzone

Well it's bedtime, I'm bumping this thread for later because I've only made it to page 5. Can't wait to how things play out. Also I did a bit of research. And found one article that lead me to two other supporting sources and I may give this diet a try to change things up a bit.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319&cpage=2#comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

http://okinawa-diet.com/okinawa_diet/okinawa_diet_food_pyramid.html

Also please add me!!! I'd love to discuss nutrition and weight training.

It's a scam. http://stan-heretic.blogspot.com/2009/10/beware-of-okinawa-diet-scam.html

tanialuke

Still wondering WHY if its calories in calories out that matter!! Why they are able to lose soo much faster??

Because carbohydrates are a complex sugar. When the body is looking for energy to function it will first use simple sugars, and then complex sugars (carbs), after that it will start to burn fat for energy (as it has no carbs). If you eat less than 20g carbs per day, the body is forced to use fat for energy to function. This sounds like a quick fix, but it is really unhealthy. What happens is that your body goes into a state called ketosis and as well as burning fat you are significantly reducing your muscle mass. reduced muscle mass means that you burn less calories at rest. This will lead to an eventual weight gain again, but next time you put weight on it will all be flubber and not muscle. Plus your breath will stink and you wont get laid. ;-0

gpinzone

If you eat less than 20g carbs per day, the body is forced to use fat for energy to function. This sounds like a quick fix, but it is really unhealthy. What happens is that your body goes into a state called ketosis and as well as burning fat you are significantly reducing your muscle mass. reduced muscle mass means that you burn less calories at rest. This will lead to an eventual weight gain again, but next time you put weight on it will all be flubber and not muscle. Plus your breath will stink and you wont get laid. ;-0

*face palm* http://www.jissn.com/content/1/2/7

GaiaGirl1992

All I want to know is WHY they (low carbers) lose at such a faster rate than calorie counters? That's it! Not opinions (with all due respect)

to attempt to answer your question...

Most of one's daily calories come from carbs. For example, I chose the fairly popular 50/30/20 rule, where 50% of my calories come from carbs. Low carb diets work from the fact that most weight is gained by eating lots of carbs and fats--breads, pasta, and cheese (IMO, a carb-food) and tend to be more calories for less nutrition, especially in store-bought foods. Foods like veggies replace the carbs and are lower calorie, so the weight comes off. However, a low carb diet is hard to maintain because your body craves the energy carbs give. The lack of a main energy source forces the body to look for a different source of energy, from fat to muscle (bad!!) and this can also throw off other balances in your body, which can hurt you short and long term. Once you start re-introducing carbs down the road, you will likely start to regain weight you lost, as with most restrictive diets.

With calorie counters the weight comes off slower, but because few foods are completely cut out, the weight tends to stay off in the long run.

This is just observation and a bit of research btw, I could be wrong. But this is how I understand it myself.

Acg67

I guess if you are shooting for a three day diet and exercise plan and are already "healthy normal-weight" (as per the paper), your options are pretty good!

Put on your thinking cap and think what they were aiming to test

It's not different results. The people who lost more weight lowered improved their HDL/LDL ratio more. What they did is normalize all the people to see if there was some other factor in the diet besides weight loss improved that ratio. So even if there were twice as many Atkins dieters that lost 20 pounds than Ornish, they counted each as a two identical groups. The other thing they neglected to look at was triglycerides. HDL/Triglyceride ratio, which is a marker for metabolic disorder and obesity was best in the Atkins group.

Please stop posting studies that cherry pick data.

Both used group mean wt loss, the study I posted Atkins performed the worst, as opposed to your study that you posted that you declared Atkins was the hands down winner.

Spartan_Maker

The reason why so many people effortlessly lose body fat on low carbohydrate diets, particularly ketogenic diets, is because they provide a 300 calorie advantage over all other diets, day-after-day, because 75% of the brain's needs are provided endogenously by the ketone body beta-hydroxybutyrate.

No hypoglycemia.

The end.

I've never seen so much misinformation in one thread in my life.

LOL then why is there no significant difference in fat loss when cals and protein are held constant?

Oh and here's a fun one

Presence or absence of carbohydrates and the proportion of fat in a high-protein diet affect appetite suppression but not energy expenditure in normal-weight human subjects fed in energy balance

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999

You are wrong. The human body breaks down carbohydrates very quickly and easily starting with saliva. Complex carbohydrates are just long chains of sugar (glucose). Excess glucose gets converted to glycogen, which can be stored by the liver and muscles for energy. After that, your liver converts excess glucose to triglycerides. In other words, FAT!

How common is DNL in humans?

Your response is a non-sequitur. I suspect the reason why you didn't understand what I wrote has something to do with repeatedly conflating the words "than" and "then," most prominently on display in the first sentence of your profile, and beginning many of your posts with internet memes popularized by prepubescent children.

People on a ketogenic diet, in particular, need to eat 300 fewer calories each day to make their body's work. That's the "metabolic advantage" -- a monstrous one: much more important than quibbling over relative resting energy expenditure. Of course, even on that issue, not a single study that you cite shows the serum beta-hydroxybutyrate levels of the "low carb" groups.

Your argument is akin to saying a 2013 Porsche 911 Turbo isn't faster than a 1978 Ford Pinto if you make each of them go 30 mph. You miss the entire point.

tigersword

It has been said, and it is just as false now as it was the first time it was said. Sugar does NOT build fat, except in extremely rare cases. And it never builds fat while eating in a calorie deficit. It's not true, and quite frankly, it doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.

You are wrong. The human body breaks down carbohydrates very quickly and easily starting with saliva. Complex carbohydrates are just long chains of sugar (glucose). Excess glucose gets converted to glycogen, which can be stored by the liver and muscles for energy. After that, your liver converts excess glucose to triglycerides. In other words, FAT!

And in a state of caloric deficit, what's the net fat storage? Oh yeah, a negative number.

tigersword

LMAO. the A to Z weight loss study, were cals or protein held constant? Oh and dietary recall for the obese, I'm sure that is accurate.

Dietary recall is poor. The difference is with the A TO Z study, they weren't attempting to make precise measurements of metabolic differences. It's not like one group was more likely to lie than the other. It was a test to see how the diets would perform "in the real world" without constant monitoring. The results are clear: Atkins wins hands down.

I have the full study on my work comp, try reading it again and what was measured and what the results were. Amazingly the 0 carb diet didn't turbocharge their metabolism

I guess if you are shooting for a three day diet and exercise plan and are already "healthy normal-weight" (as per the paper), your options are pretty good!

http://bit.ly/WvOcGZ

Strong answer

Quite.

If Atkins "wins hands down," then why were they the only group in the middle of regaining the weight they had lost? In 6 months they lost all the weight, and in the final six mo the they steadily regained weight. Based on the trend, if that study had gone on another year, the Atkins group would have been back to their starting weight, while the other 3 groups had continued to lose.

I'd say that makes Atkins the worst of the group.

asiadaysia

I totally understand your question and have the same one. I've just got refocused on my weight loss journey and I'm trying to decide which way to go. however, from my experience those who eat less calories and work out like crazy lose just as much weight as the low carbers. Where as the low carbers don't usually need to go as hard with the work outs and still drop weight fast. If someone finally give you a satisfactory answer please share with me.

yellowsnowdrop

I've lost weight both fast and slowish and never stopped eating Carbs, I just couldn't I like my pasta and bread too much. It's all about making a healthier lifestyle for yourself and sticking to something absolutely sustainable for the rest of your life. If you feel that you could live forever eating limited amounts of Carbohydrate then go ahead, I just know that I couldn't.
Weight loss is a slow process, it crepps on slowly and the best way to loose it is the same way. Just eat healthy.

Chadomaniac

CALORIES = ENERGY

EXCESS ENERGY = STORAGE IN FORM OF ADIPOSE TISSUE

Lupercalia

I eat a diet that is naturally low in carbohydrates as I have some health issues I'm managing. I have not lost weight faster than anyone else with similar stats to mine. I track everything I eat (and yes, you do need to watch calories no matter how you're attempting to lose) and I exercise 4-6 times per week pretty intensely. I've lost 55 lbs since July 2012.

Spartan_Maker

I totally understand your question and have the same one. I've just got refocused on my weight loss journey and I'm trying to decide which way to go. however, from my experience those who eat less calories and work out like crazy lose just as much weight as the low carbers. Where as the low carbers don't usually need to go as hard with the work outs and still drop weight fast. If someone finally give you a satisfactory answer please share with me.

As I mention above, the reason why fat loss is so much easier for those on low carbohydate diets, especially a ketogenic diet (< 50 grams of carbs a day for most people), is because they have to eat 300 fewer calories each day, compared to everyone else trying to lose weight. Over just one week's time, that's 2,100 calories: a huge "metabolic advantage."

In that regard, the brain is unlike any other part of the body. It can only run off of two types of fuel: glucose or the ketone body beta-hydroxybutyyrate combined with a relatively small amount of glucose. Everyone's brain, regardless of his or her height and weight, uses roughly the same amount of calories.

When a person is eating less than 50 grams of carbohydrates a day, they produce sufficient amounts of the ketone body beta-hydroxybutyrate to fuel the majority of the brain's energy needs -- roughly 75%. By limiting carbohydrates and not spiking insulin all day long, ketogenic dieters are always in so-called "fat burning mode": hormone sensitive lipase is upregulated all the time, resulting in the constant breakdown and mobilization of triglycerides. As those triglycerides are broken down, the liver immediately grabs its share of the fatty acids and glycerol to fuel the brain. The liver does so by making beta-hydroxybutyrate out of the fatty acids and uses the glycerol to make glucose in a process called "gluconeogenesis."

People who simply cut calories never produce enough beta-hydroxybutyrate to sufficiently fuel their brains. As a result, they are invariably subject to hypoglycemia and have to eat carbohydrates every time their glycogen runs low. On a ketogenic diet, the brain is always taken care of endogenously through the process above. Consequently, ketogenic dieters never experience hypoglycemia and can effortlessly eat less and stick to their daily calorie goals while rarely even thinking about food. When the brain is fed, the overwhelming majority of the body's cells can function using fatty acids.

The ketogenic diet is the reason all of us are here posting in this thread. It's how our ancestors overcame every major blight and famine in human history. It's why I cringe when I hear those who never took high school biochemistry call it a "fad."