Low Fat vs. Low Carb Diet

The comparisons are pointless without considering context, such as the individuals dietary needs and how you are defining low.

Generally speaking, fat is physiologically more important.

Weight loss will primarily be driven by energy balance. Macronutrients matter for various reasons such as body composition, hormones, etc.

In research where all other factors are the same and calories are strictly monitored, neither has been shown to have an advantage.

In studies that show a low carb diet to be superior, usually the low carb diet is higher in protein, and/or calorie intake is self reported.

How about just Low (er) Calorie?

Fat is an essential nutrient. Carbs are not. Take that how you will.

The comparisons are pointless without considering context, such as the individuals dietary needs and how you are defining low.

For an average/normal man or woman. As far as defining low, I mean limiting (or eliminating) one while likely raising intake of the other. Thanks for your input!

As far as "limiting' goes, that again depends on context. I would say that there's a lower threshold for fat intake that you wouldn't want to go under for a prolonged period of time.

If you're talking about eliminating or getting as close to zero as you can, I'd remove carbs before removing fat, for physiological reasons.



But beyond that (and for the record, look at FireBrands post too because it's correct), I think both are silly as arbitrary diets.

The ideal would be to look at the individual and his or her personal and performance needs and structure your macro intake to meet that. I don't function well when I go below 200g carb for example. Someone else may not do well going over 50.

I found it easier to give up bread than bacon and full-fat cheese. In the sticking-with-it sense, that makes a low-carb diet better for my weight loss goals.

IMO, low carb is better for weight loss, specifically fat loss. Your body needs fat (good fats: 2% milk, a drizzle of olive oil to cook chicken breast, some avocado on a salad, etc). We don't really NEED bread, pasta, twinkies, candy, etc.

Every day I shoot for 40% protein, 30% carbs, 30% fat.

I REALLY limit carbs like bread of any kind or color including tortillas and wraps, pasta, sugar, crackers, chips, etc. Most days I go without eating anything in the "grain" category except steel cut oats in the AM, sweet potatoes (no butter!), and brown rice.

But I don't feel guilty for having a big salad with lots of dark leafy greens, tomatoes, onions, cucumber, avocado, chicken, and my favorite Newman's Own restaurant style italian dressing (not light). It's got "carbs" but I don't personally count veggies as "carbs" even though they technically are. I eat as many veggies as I want. And it's got fat from the avocado and dressing. But it's super healthy, good protein, and guilt-free in my book.

Lower calorie by itself is no good if you're eating Twinkies at all of your meals. :bigsmile:

I know you're probably just being silly but the above also depends on context. I could eat a twinkie at every meal and look the way I do now and have great health markers.

You probably could, as long as you were eating very well otherwise.
I was actually referring to the diet where one would eat nothing but Twinkies. It's worth a google, or, maybe it isn't.

I believe that most people find low carb easier for weight loss because it allows you to eat more satisfying foods and a high fat/high protein diet is better for satiety than many other diets.

I used to think this same thing until I found the nutritarian diet style. It's worth investigating if you haven't heard of it.

Saying that one should eat primarily nutrient dense foods is kind of beside the point.