please don't think I'm dumb but......

Calories are the total "energy" in a food-the combination of fat, carbs, and protein in a food. Carbs are the sugars and fiber within a food. You can eat carbs and lose weight. Carbs are what your body turns into sugar or energy. The more fiber there is in a product, the lower the "net carbs" (total carbs-fiber). Does that make sense?

On a side note, you should never completely eliminate a food group from your diet...sure fire way to fail (this is my opinion). Does that help?

carbs, protein and fat are all macro nutrients that contain calories. Below is a breakout

carb 1 gram = 4 calories
protein 1 gram = 4 calories
fats 1 gram = 9 calories.


Being over on carbs may adversely affect you in the fact that protein and fats will be low. Protein and fats provide greater satiety. Also, protein is critical to maintain muscle mass which is necessary to supporting your body/frame, improving insulin resistance and immune system and so much more. This is where MFP is a bit low - it's based on the FDA standards which are low - and people on this board adjust macro's to increase protein and fats. Also, heavy carbs lead to more glycogen/water storage. So if you cut carbs to a moderate level, lets say 40% it's quite possible you will cut several lbs of water weight.

carbs, protein and fat are all macro nutrients that contain calories. Below is a breakout

carb 1 gram = 4 calories
protein 1 gram = 4 calories
fats 1 gram = 9 calories.

Wow... didn't realize that! Thanks for this! Comes in very handy!

My understanding is that you determine the total calorie content of a food based on the grams of carbs, fat, and protein it contains. Each of those 3 have a certain number of calories per gram (4, 9, and 4 respectively) and you need some of each for your body to function properly. (Though I've read some things that argue carbs are NOT necessary)

It's almost impossible to eliminate carbohydrates completely. Carbohydrates aren't necessary because your liver converts fat/protein to glucose for the parts of the brain that need it. Your heart and kidneys work just fine (arguably better) on ketones.

Which is perfect since you couldn't pay me enough money to give them up. I LOVE CARBS :laugh: And I feel wretched without them in my life....

Calories aren't particularly useful to track. To say 100 calories of white bread is equal to 100 calories of steak is completely wrong. Dietary carbohydrates drive insulin, which drives fat storage. In essence, all diets reduce carbohydrates when compared to the typical American diet. Even a "low fat" diet lowers carbohydrates more than fat and protein if the starting point is comprised of fast-food and sugary desserts. The more carbohydrates you cut, the faster you lose weight. Study after study has shown this to be true.

What kind of incorrect information are you even trying to promote. Very few people actually need to follow a low carb diet. In fact, it only consist of those with metabolic disorders like insulin resistance, thyroid issues, and sometimes menopause. The average person can process carbs completely fine.

Also, in terms of fat loss, there is NO advantage to low carb vs moderate carb. The reason you lose more weight initially is carbs store additional glycogen/water. So your initial 10 lbs of weight loss is generally all water. If you look at long term results, fat loss is equal and in many times, so is weight loss. But if you can show me a study that is 1 yr + in time from a reputal research company (like the NIH), then I may consider your point as valid. But this is just not true.

The more carbohydrates you cut, the faster you lose weight.

That does seem to be true for me.

What kind of incorrect information are you even trying to promote. Very few people actually need to follow a low carb diet. In fact, it only consist of those with metabolic disorders like insulin resistance, thyroid issues, and sometimes menopause. The average person can process carbs completely fine.

Most people who are overweight are insulin resistant. People who are insulin resistant lose weight by cutting carbohydrates. The more carbs cut, the more weight lost. If you aren't insulin resistant or you're not looking to lose weight, then go crazy.

Also, in terms of fat loss, there is NO advantage to low carb vs moderate carb. The reason you lose more weight initially is carbs store additional glycogen/water. So your initial 10 lbs of weight loss is generally all water. If you look at long term results, fat loss is equal and in many times, so is weight loss. But if you can show me a study that is 1 yr + in time from a reputal research company (like the NIH), then I may consider your point as valid. But this is just not true.

Sure. Here you go: http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-nutrition-and-wellness/volume-4-number-2/arguments-in-favor-of-ketogenic-diets.html

Check out the "Metabolic Effects" section. It is true that the initial (first week) of weight loss on a low-carb diet is partly due to water loss. Glycogen stores in lean tissue carry a lot of water with it. Diet compliance over the long term is poor for all diet strategies. Most people give up whatever diet they pick after a few months, which is why they all look the same.

Here is one of the best studies ever done. The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

To say that most overweight people are insulin resistant is a wild accusation that doesnt' have merit. And you sent me a link to a paper on why keto diets can be effective. I never said it wouldnt be effective, but it isn't required by any means.


And here you go

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html

"... if calories and protein intake are identical, there is little to no metabolic advantage (in terms of fat or weight loss) to full blown ketogenic diets"

And

"In terms of weight and fat loss, at the end of 6 weeks both groups had lost roughly the same amount of weight (6.3kg for the ketogenic diet, and 7.2 kg for the non-ketogenic diet; this was not statistically significant). As well, the loss of body fat was the same (3.4 kg in the ketogenic diet and 5.5 kg in the non-ketogenic diet; again this was not statistically different even if the non-ketogenic diet seems to have lost ~4 pounds more fat). There was no significant change in fat free mass for either diet."

Get' em Lemon!

Your link isn't a research study, it's a arguement for a specific diet. I could do the same thing for paleo/primal and a billion other diets. I look at research that is unbiased and not advocating a specific diet.

The link to the journal article is proof of the metabolic advantage. The video is the results of a peer reviewed published article in JAMA. If you want proof of the paper, here it is: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916

You said, "But if you can show me a study that is 1 yr + in time from a reputal research company (like the NIH), then I may consider your point as valid." There you go.

Here is a good article that breaks down the theory you promote.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

Naughty, naughty. You're using a study that lasted 4-weeks and relied on self-reporting. They didn't keep the subjects in a metabolic ward and measure thermogenic differences. I agree that his earlier meta-analysis was probably wrong (as most meta-analysises are.) But let's ignore that for a moment. The published paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999) says:

"In conclusion, appetite suppression and fat oxidation were higher on a high-protein diet without than with carbohydrates exchanged for fat. Energy expenditure was not affected by the carbohydrate content of a high-protein diet."

So there was MORE FAT LOSS and LESS HUNGER on the carb restricted diet, but energy expenditure wasn't affected. Or another way to put it: a ketogenic diet doesn't affect energy expenditure.