If its really about calories then explain to me why.....
Replies
-
Not all calories are created equal. If you eat sugar it turns to fat if it is not burned off. If you eat lower carb (non simple processed sugar) food your body burns fat better. If I worry about calories, I can eat 1500 and still eat a lot of junk and be under and not lose anything. If I am concentrating on reducing sugar intake, I can eat 1500 calories and eat a lot of good for me food and my body will use it to burn the fat I have rather than the sugar I just ate. I am finally getting this and it is really great. I am not saying don't ever have a treat or anything like that, but for me at least, I have noticed that when I concentrate my efforts on eating natural foods and cut out the processed stuff, my body loses. When I get stuck in a rut and eat crap, I can work out for an hour a day and don't lose a thing. I call that bulimic exercise, because that is what it is. Instead of puking it up, I "burn it off" and maintain my weight. Trying to get out of that habit and just eat what is good for me with the occasional treat, and not feel guilt. Good luck.
There is a huge difference between being healthy and weight loss.
This guy actually lost weight eating mostly sugar.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html0 -
As a runner, I'd DIE without carbs. Come to think of it, so would every single human being, runner or not..0
-
Studies have shown repeatedly that people on low-carb diets actually lose weight because they're eating fewer calories.0
-
it is all about calories in vs calories out. those people who lose weight "really fast" are doing it the wrong way. u should NEVER deprived ur body of food. it's about getting healthy not starving your self. want to lose weight faster? then work out more! lift weights and eat clean and you'll see results -.-0
-
Th reason people in low-carb diets, like Atkins and South Beach, loose weight so fast is that they are limiting the amount of carbohydrate the body stores in form of glycogen. Usually, your body holds two days worth of carbohydrates in the form of glycogen in the liver. In a low carb diet, this two day supply is gone, so the body has no other choice than to start to burn fat deposits to keep the energy going. The main problem of such diets is sustainability. There are other issues like digestive problems, as carbs, which include fiber, is needed for a well-functioning digestive system. Moreover, because your diet is mostly protein and fat, your kidneys are working extra hard to clean up your blood of toxins that derive from fat metabolism (ketosis) and protein breakdown. All in all, is better to loose the weight at a slower pace, but making sure that our bodies can adapt to the changes without compromising our health.0
-
The lower the carbs the body goes into ketosis which is not necessarily bad but after a while it rarely is sustainable. It can cause kidney problems if you don't drink enough water. It causes the body to burn fat stores and since you not getting carbs they are not stored either. That is very watered down but basically it.0
-
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.0 -
From James Kreiger, a recognized expert in the field of dieting and nutrition when writing a summary paper on research of Low Carb Diets:
1. The proposed metabolic advantage (MA) for low carb diets is a hypothesis, not a fact
2. There is inadequate data to support the MA hypothesis
3. There is inadequate data to reject the MA hypothesis
I don't know what definition of "metabolic advantage" he's ascribing. So I can't comment on his assertion.4. The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".
Well, there goes his reputation right there.5. A definitive study examining 24-hour energy expenditure (using room calorimetry), comparing a ketogenic diet to a traditional diet (with matched protein intake) for subjects in an energy deficit, has not been performed. This is the only study that will adequately test the MA hypothesis in humans
That would be nice. One day perhaps.6. Weight loss still requires an energy deficit. If a MA exists, it still cannot make up for an energy surplus or energy balance. To assert otherwise is to assert that energy can be created or destroyed out of thin air, or that human tissue can be created in the absence of any energy input.
And there he goes making dumb statements again. That's like arguing the greenhouse effect isn't real because the sun gives out the same energy no matter how much greenhouse gas is in the atmosphere. He doesn't understand physics, but he likes to pretend he does.James Kreiger's credentials: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=3
No offense but I put more stock in what he says than in what you say.
Oh wow! He's an assistant for an online degree from GNC! The supplement company! This guy is totally legit! :noway:FTR, he does not view low carb unfavorably. In his larger body of work he is postively disposed to it for some people. I agree. But it is not nessesarily "better" for all.
Do you know how easy it is to get a degree in nutrition? No? This guy is a perfect example.
EDIT:I've never seen so much misinformation in one thread in my life.
True dat.0 -
But im asking WHY do low carvers lose so much faster than calorie counters if its the calories that matter so much!
I lost over 100 lbs in a year counting calories and eating lots of carbs. Everyone is different.0 -
I found an article written by a Phd and certified nutritionist and I think if you read the article you will get the answer you seek..
the Why?
and basically the doc says yes in the beginning low carb diets work faster for losing weight because actually the amount of food people eat on these diets signal brain of dieters to stop eating hence they are really cuttin calories and he also says that after long haul of dieting low carbers stop losing weight as fast as they dis before and calorie counting dieters ends up catching up in terms of speed.
http://www.shape.com/weight-loss/weight-loss-strategies/ask-diet-doctor-should-i-count-calories-or-carbs0 -
I'm sure it's been said, sorry, didn't read thru it all.
Your body turns carbs into sugar. They're basically sugar. Sugar builds fat. If you restrict your carbs you lower your sugar and thus don't build more fat.. The less your body is turning things into sugar/fat, addidng into the equation exercise, the more likely it is you will lose weight. However, unless you feel you can maintain this low level of consumption for a lifetime, it is probably not the smartest or most long-term effective method of weight loss.
Even for a diabetic, who should limit their carbs, this is considered too low for even them to consume/day.
J0 -
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.I'm sure it's been said, sorry, didn't read thru it all.
Your body turns carbs into sugar. They're basically sugar. Sugar builds fat. If you restrict your carbs you lower your sugar and thus don't build more fat.. The less your body is turning things into sugar/fat, addidng into the equation exercise, the more likely it is you will lose weight. However, unless you feel you can maintain this low level of consumption for a lifetime, it is probably not the smartest or most long-term effective method of weight loss.
Even for a diabetic, who should limit their carbs, this is considered too low for even them to consume/day.
J0 -
Why is it that sooo many people lose weight so much quicker when they eat less than 20 grams of carbs per day? I see soooo many success stories where people lose 50-60 lb in 5 months (for example) these are people who are not extremely obese either..whereas counting calories you rarely see where they lose that much in that short period of time? So is it really the deficit in your daily calories that count? All these numerous stories I read & see lose so much so quick eating low carb!!
I lost 50 pounds in a little over 5 months just counting calories, and to start I was only 30 pounds over weight.0 -
I lost 80 in 5 months eating loads of carbs and watching fat in take very closely. Your body needs carbs, less then 20 grams? yikes.0
-
I believe it's because the quality of calories DO count no matter how much all of the road map people tell you otherwise. I would rather eat 1500 clean calories than fill the gap with carbs and fat. Most of the people who eat clean eat a lower amount of carbs anyways.
Thank you but do you see what im saying? Im wondering why those that follow lets say the Atkins WOE lose so much quicker?
because their body eats away all their muscle (which is heavy)? just a guess0 -
I'd rather lose weight eating what I want than cutting or restricting a food group. Especially considering what will probably happen once you start eating that food group again after you reach your goal weight.
I second that. I could live on bread and water so to cut that out would be too difficult and I would quit for sure.0 -
bump to read later0
-
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!0 -
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/20565999You 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?0 -
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/17341711Oh 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/WvOcGZ0 -
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
Strong answer0 -
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.0
-
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=2000940 -
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!
Strong answer
Quite.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.html0 -
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. ;-00 -
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/1/2/70
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions