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

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."

Donna_Olsen

Well, I'm loosing! Eating, never hungrig and the food is sooo good! Just read the link why below. I'm never eating junk again (don't feel the urge to anymore either )

http://www.dietdoctor.com/

myofibril

http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf

If you like a low carb diet, it suits your preferences and are successful then that is a great thing.

The metabolic advantage argument though does not stand up to scrutiny as the above link discusses in thorough detail.

Spartan_Maker

http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf

If you like a low carb diet, it suits your preferences and are successful then that is a great thing.

The metabolic advantage argument though does not stand up to scrutiny as the above link discusses in thorough detail.

Given the author's limited definition of "metabolic advantage," it's not surprising he wasted 82-pages stuck in some immaterial rabbit hole.

myofibril

http://www.thefatlossbible.net/They_Are_All_Mad.pdf

If you like a low carb diet, it suits your preferences and are successful then that is a great thing.

The metabolic advantage argument though does not stand up to scrutiny as the above link discusses in thorough detail.

Given the author's limited definition of "metabolic advantage," it's not surprising he wasted 82-pages stuck in some immaterial rabbit hole.

How do you scientifically define it?

Spartan_Maker

@mfern123

I define it the way any person with a single functioning brain synapse should: "Any advantage related to the chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life."

ETA: Parenthetically, I read the introduction of that 82-pages of immateriality, and it could've been written in crayon.

myofibril

@mfern123

I define it the way any person with a single functioning brain synapse should: "Any advantage related to the chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life."

And in properly controlled metabolic ward study of isocaloric diets with different macronutrient contents has this "advantage" been shown to provide any statistically significant difference in rates of fat loss?

So, it's advantageous but just not in terms of fat loss - 300 calories worth or not as the case may be.

I can live with that.

Spartan_Maker

@mfern123

I define it the way any person with a single functioning brain synapse should: "Any advantage related to the chemical processes occurring within a living cell or organism that are necessary for the maintenance of life."

And in properly controlled metabolic ward study of isocaloric diets with different macronutrient contents has this "advantage" been shown to provide any statistically significant difference in rates of fat loss?

So, it's advantageous but just not in terms of fat loss - 300 calories worth or not as the case may be.

I can live with that.

I'm not sure which part of my previous posts don't address all of those issues, but I'll do it again:

1. To my knowledge, there has never been a metabolic ward study comparing fat loss on isocaloric diets between people with serum beta-hydroxybutyrate levels consistently above 1.0 mg/dl and other dieters; and

2. Yes: an 8,400 monthly calorie advantage is far more important than negligible differences in resting energy expenditure on isocaloric diets. That's a huge "metabolic advantage."

myofibril

I'm not sure which part of my previous posts don't address all of those issues, but I'll do it again:

1. To my knowledge, there has never been a metabolic ward study comparing fat loss on isocaloric diets between people with serum beta-hydroxybutyrate levels consistently above 1.0 mg/dl and other dieters; and

So in essence there are none to show the existence of any statistically significant difference in fat loss and it is currently unsupported speculation to assert otherwise

2. Yes: an 8,400 monthly calorie advantage is far more important than negligible differences in resting energy expenditure on isocaloric diets. That's a huge "metabolic advantage."

Given the above, this "metabolic advantage" even if it does exist would not translate into any statistical difference in terms of fat loss if calories and protein are held constant.

Which takes me back full circle to: if you like it and it suits your preferences then do it. if not, you could always try something else...

Spartan_Maker

I'm not sure which part of my previous posts don't address all of those issues, but I'll do it again:

1. To my knowledge, there has never been a metabolic ward study comparing fat loss on isocaloric diets between people with serum beta-hydroxybutyrate levels consistently above 1.0 mg/dl and other dieters; and

So in essence there are none to show the existence of any statistically significant difference in fat loss and it is currently unsupported speculation to assert otherwise

2. Yes: an 8,400 monthly calorie advantage is far more important than negligible differences in resting energy expenditure on isocaloric diets. That's a huge "metabolic advantage."

Given the above, this "metabolic advantage" even if it does exist would not translate into any statistical difference in terms of fat loss if calories and protein are held constant.

Which takes me back full circle to: if you like it and it suits your preferences then do it. if not, you could always try something else...

1. "In essence"? No, by definition: it's called a hypothesis. More to the point, as I've written repeatedly, it's likely to be negligible anyway, so it's not even worth discussing. It's certainly not going to be 300 calories a day, like what I'm discussing.

2. The "metabolic advantage" that I've explained ad nauseum now, is that people on ketogenic diets need to eat 8,400 fewer calories a month. By any measure, that's going to result in a statistically significant difference in fat loss -- approximately 12 lbs. in six months -- assuming both diets were otherwise properly constructed.

I trust we can dispense with the straw men.

neandermagnon

But im asking WHY do low carvers lose so much faster than calorie counters if its the calories that matter so much!

because they lose more water and glycogen, it's not all fat. Low carbers lose the same amount of fat as anyone else who has the same size calorie deficit. Low carb diets result in fat loss because they create a deficit. The amount of fat you lose depends on the deficit. However, if you cut out all carbs, your body's glycogen stores will become depleted, that accounts for a lot of water weight.

so, low carb = fat loss + large water weight losses

counting calories + balanced diet = fat loss + minor waterweight losses

scale weight losses may be more for low carbers, but it's fat loss that counts in terms of both health and what you actually look like. Plus a balanced diet is easier to maintain in the long term.

TeresaAlice1968

There trying to tell you low carb diets cut out sugar that why weight loss is so fast! It's not healthly to eat that way every person i know who has went on low carb diet had extreme weight loss followed by extreme weight gain after going back to normal eating.Most food low in carbs have a very high fat content.SO the reason why their losing so fast is because they are cutting out sugar.

myofibril

1. "In essence"? No, by definition: it's called a hypothesis. More to the point, as I've written repeatedly, it's likely to be negligible anyway, so it's not even worth discussing. It's certainly not going to be 300 calories a day, like what I'm discussing.

2. The "metabolic advantage" that I've explained ad nauseum now, is that people on ketogenic diets need to eat 8,400 fewer calories a month. By any measure, that's going to result in a statistically significant difference in fat loss -- approximately 12 lbs. in six months -- assuming both diets were otherwise properly constructed.

I trust we can dispense with the straw men.

I owe you an apology. It is a straw man but it wasn't deliberate.

Having read the above post I also looked at your first post on this thread (which I hadn't seen when I posted my first one.) I agree with you that ketogenic diets do have certain "metabolic advantages" - not the ability to somehow eat more calories but the ability to spontaneously eat less particularly due to blunting hunger and controlling blood sugar.

Obviously, whether it suitable for the individual will come down to their preferences and their training schedule but yes, it will give an advantage to a number of people.

Spartan_Maker

1. "In essence"? No, by definition: it's called a hypothesis. More to the point, as I've written repeatedly, it's likely to be negligible anyway, so it's not even worth discussing. It's certainly not going to be 300 calories a day, like what I'm discussing.

2. The "metabolic advantage" that I've explained ad nauseum now, is that people on ketogenic diets need to eat 8,400 fewer calories a month. By any measure, that's going to result in a statistically significant difference in fat loss -- approximately 12 lbs. in six months -- assuming both diets were otherwise properly constructed.

I trust we can dispense with the straw men.

I owe you an apology. It is a straw man but it wasn't deliberate.

Having read the above post I also looked at your first post on this thread (which I hadn't seen when I posted my first one.) I agree with you that ketogenic diets do have certain "metabolic advantages" - not the ability to somehow eat more calories but the ability to spontaneously eat less particularly due to blunting hunger and controlling blood sugar.

Obviously, whether it suitable for the individual will come down to their preferences and their training schedule but yes, it will give an advantage to a number of people.

In that case, the apology is mine -- for obvious reasons.

WendyTerry420

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.

This makes no sense. "Have to eat carbs" has no business being interpreted as a bad thing. If you want to change your brain chemistry, that's fine, but don't pretend that's what everyone *ought* to be doing. Some of us enjoy getting our energy from carbs.

Spartan_Maker

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.

This makes no sense. "Have to eat carbs" has no business being interpreted as a bad thing. If you want to change your brain chemistry, that's fine, but don't pretend that's what everyone *ought* to be doing. Some of us enjoy getting our energy from carbs.

You shouldn't imply things that aren't there. I'm talking about biochemistry.

If your feelings are hurt by basic science, it's not my fault.

tigersword

Spartan_Maker, you keep saying the metabolic advantage is that people on ketogenic diets can eat 300 less calories. How exactly is that a metabolic advantage? That's energy conservation. If I need 2000 calories to maintain weight on a non ketogenic diet, then based on your claim, I'd need 1700 calories to maintain weight on a ketogenic diet. So, holding protein constant, I would eat either 1500 calories on a non ketogenic diet, or 1200 calories on a ketogenic diet, and I'd lose the exact same amount of fat.

A metabolic advantage would mean I could eat the same number of calories on both diets, and lose more fat on the ketogenic diet. Looks like what you are stating is the exact opposite of that.

Also, another part you are leaving out, ketogenic diets are high fat. Gluconeogenesis doesn't burn stored body fat, it just uses the dietary fat you are eating to create ketones instead of carbs to create glucose. You are just substituting one energy source for another. Cut 300 calories from carbs, and add those 300 calories in protein and fat (to hold calories constant) and it doesn't change anything. This is what is meant by "no metabolic advantage."

Cinflo58

Low carbohydrate diets cause the body to go into different metabolic state called ketosis, whereby it burns its own fat for fuel. Normally the body burns carbohydrates for fuel -- this is the main source of fuel for your brain, heart ,and many other organs. A person in ketosis is getting energy from ketones, little carbon fragments that are the fuel created by the breakdown of fat stores. When the body is in ketosis, you tend to feel less hungry, and thus you're likely to eat less than you might otherwise. So these people may actually be eating fewer calories than before.

So it is calories in vs calories out!

mmapags

One of the best things about these kind of threads is they help to easily identify people to put on ignore. :drinker:

Spartan_Maker

Spartan_Maker, you keep saying the metabolic advantage is that people on ketogenic diets can eat 300 less calories. How exactly is that a metabolic advantage? That's energy conservation. If I need 2000 calories to maintain weight on a non ketogenic diet, then based on your claim, I'd need 1700 calories to maintain weight on a ketogenic diet. So, holding protein constant, I would eat either 1500 calories on a non ketogenic diet, or 1200 calories on a ketogenic diet, and I'd lose the exact same amount of fat.

A metabolic advantage would mean I could eat the same number of calories on both diets, and lose more fat on the ketogenic diet. Looks like what you are stating is the exact opposite of that.

Also, another part you are leaving out, ketogenic diets are high fat. Gluconeogenesis doesn't burn stored body fat, it just uses the dietary fat you are eating to create ketones instead of carbs to create glucose. You are just substituting one energy source for another. Cut 300 calories from carbs, and add those 300 calories in protein and fat (to hold calories constant) and it doesn't change anything. This is what is meant by "no metabolic advantage."

I gave my definition of "metabolic advantage" above. I know the conventional definition of it; strike that, I know the limited definition put on it by people who use it opportunistically. You otherwise misunderstood what I wrote.

As for the paragraph beginning with "Also," gluconeogenesis has nothing to do with ketones. It's the process whereby glucose is created from glycerol and sometimes from deanimated protein.

If we both had identical BMRs, but I'm in ketosis, I largely fuel my brain with ketones from body fat and you have to eat 300 calories worth of carbs to get the same energy because your glycogen stores are limited. In this example, I'm producing enough BHB to take care of my brain; you're not.

In other words, I can feed my brain endogenously and you can't because you want to eat your carbs. Consequently, I can eat less, effortlessly, with no hypoglycemia, and reach my goal faster at the same time. This is all most people care about: no one cares about whether there is some negligible increase in resting energy expenditure on competing isocaloric diets.

Acg67

Spartan_Maker, you keep saying the metabolic advantage is that people on ketogenic diets can eat 300 less calories. How exactly is that a metabolic advantage? That's energy conservation. If I need 2000 calories to maintain weight on a non ketogenic diet, then based on your claim, I'd need 1700 calories to maintain weight on a ketogenic diet. So, holding protein constant, I would eat either 1500 calories on a non ketogenic diet, or 1200 calories on a ketogenic diet, and I'd lose the exact same amount of fat.

A metabolic advantage would mean I could eat the same number of calories on both diets, and lose more fat on the ketogenic diet. Looks like what you are stating is the exact opposite of that.

Also, another part you are leaving out, ketogenic diets are high fat. Gluconeogenesis doesn't burn stored body fat, it just uses the dietary fat you are eating to create ketones instead of carbs to create glucose. You are just substituting one energy source for another. Cut 300 calories from carbs, and add those 300 calories in protein and fat (to hold calories constant) and it doesn't change anything. This is what is meant by "no metabolic advantage."

I gave my definition of "metabolic advantage" above. I know the conventional definition of it; strike that, I know the limited definition put on it by people who use it opportunistically. You otherwise misunderstood what I wrote.

As for the paragraph beginning with "Also," gluconeogenesis has nothing to do with ketones. It's the process whereby glucose is created from glycerol and sometimes from deanimated protein.

If we both had identical BMRs, but I'm in ketosis, I largely fuel my brain with ketones from body fat and you have to eat 300 calories worth of carbs to get the same energy because your glycogen stores are limited. In this example, I'm producing enough BHB to take care of my brain; you're not.

In other words, I can feed my brain endogenously and you can't because you want to eat your carbs. Consequently, I can eat less, effortlessly, with no hypoglycemia, and reach my goal faster at the same time. This is all most people care about: no one cares about whether there is some negligible increase in resting energy expenditure on competing isocaloric diets.

You could reach your lower bf goal at the same rate if you ate more carbs and held protein and cals constant with your low carb/keto diet. Thus more flexibility with your diet and better adherence which is what really counts. The more restrictive the diet, the worse the adherence