If its really about calories then explain to me why.....
Replies
-
bump0
-
This content has been removed.
-
OK, so there's no way I'm reading all 7 pages of this, but here's my 2 cents.
low carb works as long as you maintain a calorie deficit. The reason you see so many success stories is because the American diet is SOO carb heavy. Partly because so many carb heavy foods are so calorie dense as well. If you cut back carbs, you are cutting back a large percentage of the food that is available, including a huge number of calorie dense foods. Hence... easier to maintain a deficit because the choices are so limited and more filling.
It has nothing to do with the "evil carbs" themselves, but everything to do with a person's preferences.
As far as your body being able to convert every carb to energy or fat versus protein or fat... Well, that is complicated, but lets just say it is negligible in the scheme of things. If your TDEE is 1500 and you eat 2000 calories of 100% protein, your body will convert a good portion of that extra 500 calories to fat as well. It is true that carbs are considered the "preferred fuel" for your body because they take the least amount of processing by your body. However, fat and protein are not that different. Your body can convert those to stored fat or usable energy as well.0 -
bump as I am trying to eat less carbs as my weight is not shifting .........but within the past 20 years I have lost (the same) 3 stone 3 times at Slimming World where I could eat unlimited pasta, rice and potatoes.....After I had hit 40 though it just no longer worked for me and I gradually started to gain weight again even though I was eating exactly the same (carb heavy) diet plan. Bizarre. Look forward to seeing what others say...0
-
Wow. There's a lot of misinformed people in this thread.
No, low carb diets aren't fad diets. A grain-free low carb existence is what our ancestors thrived on for millions of years. Farming is only about 10,000 years old. I'm not a big paleo supporter, but facts are facts.
All diets have terrible success rates. All of them. It makes no sense to single out low carb. If anything, low carb is easier to follow because it's more satiating.
No,carbohydrates are not essential to your existence and you won't lose muscle mass or get sick from abstaining from them. However, it's really difficult to get under 20 grams a day, so it's a moot point.
Water weight loss is only in the first week of a low carb diet. The improved performance of low carb is due to many factors. One of them is NATURALLY being less hungry, lowered insulin resistance, metabolic cost of processing ketones, thermogenesis from increased protein intake, etc.
If you don't know what ATP is, then please don't say it's all just a matter of calories.0 -
People lose weight on low carb diets because carbs are glucose. Your body uses glucose for energy in metabolic reactions in the body. The electron transport chain, citric acid cycle, glycolysis, etc. When you don't have enough glucose your body uses glucagon to break down stored nutrients. So, it takes from fat and protein stores and converts the molecules into glucose. You only loose weight on low carb diets because you are pretty much cutting your body off from it's main source of energy so it has to break down all other parts of your body to be able to function. This diet is not a good idea, and it is not good for human beings. Carbohydrates are good, such as those from whole grains, fruit, and vegetables. Atkins style diets work when you're on them but once you're off your weight will go back up and it will be harder to get off again. Diets should never be a thought, lifestyles should be.0
-
You lose so much faster on a low carb diet as you rapidly lose your water weight. Typically when you are on a low carb diet you are increasing fruits/vegetables to fill yourself up. Alot of these have diuretic properties which helps in losing water weight, mostly in week one. Also when you are on a low carb diet, typically it means you're on a high protein diet which helps in building of lean muscle.
Also it would depend on if the regular diet before the low carb diet, where were the carbs coming from? Most people are consuming complex carbs such as white bread, rice, pasta etc.. and these are harder for the body to break down and store as fatty tissue if they are unused through exercise. Once you cut out the carbs and you're on a higher protein diet particularly along with working out, you will be building lean muscle. Which in turn increases metabolism, resulting in faster weight loss.0 -
Still wondering WHY if its calories in calories out that matter!! Why they are able to lose soo much faster??
All calories are not equal and the body expends differing amounts of energy digesting different foods - the thermic effect.
Out of the food groups, the thermic effect is reckoned to be as follows:
#1 Protein - up to 30% (i.e. the body will use 30 calories to digest 100 calories of protein)
#2 Complex Carbs (especially fibrous veg) - up to 20%
#3 Simple Carbs & Fats - approx 3%
So my theory is that if a low-carber is eating lots of protein and green veg, they'll be expending more calories just digesting it than a calorie-counter who's having the same calories but made up of a bit of everything and especially more than a calorie-counter who's tending towards simple carbs.
Or to put it simply - you expend more calories digesting a steak and green beans than you digesting a lasagne.0 -
You only loose weight on low carb diets because you are pretty much cutting your body off from it's main source of energy so it has to break down all other parts of your body to be able to function. This diet is not a good idea, and it is not good for human beings.
You don't know about gluconeogenesis apparently.Carbohydrates are good, such as those from whole grains, fruit, and vegetables. Atkins style diets work when you're on them but once you're off your weight will go back up and it will be harder to get off again. Diets should never be a thought, lifestyles should be.
So once you start eating things that make you fat, you will gain weight? Which diet plan lets you gorge yourself on everything a lose weight? I'd like to know how that works.0 -
Facts are facts, huh?Wow. There's a lot of misinformed people in this thread.
No, low carb diets aren't fad diets. A grain-free low carb existence is what our ancestors thrived on for millions of years. Farming is only about 10,000 years old. I'm not a big paleo supporter, but facts are facts.
All diets have terrible success rates. All of them. It makes no sense to single out low carb. If anything, low carb is easier to follow because it's more satiating.
No,carbohydrates are not essential to your existence and you won't lose muscle mass or get sick from abstaining from them. However, it's really difficult to get under 20 grams a day, so it's a moot point.
Water weight loss is only in the first week of a low carb diet. The improved performance of low carb is due to many factors. One of them is NATURALLY being less hungry, lowered insulin resistance, metabolic cost of processing ketones, thermogenesis from increased protein intake, etc.
If you don't know what ATP is, then please don't say it's all just a matter of calories.
Fact is, humans were eating grains long before farming happened. Why do you think they started farming them to begin with? Archaeological records show humans baking flatbreads on hot rocks over 30,000 years ago.
As for "improved performance of low carb?" Controlled studies have shown that there is no improved performance, all other variables (exercise, caloric deficit, protein levels) held constant. It's fully a personal preference.
After all, facts are facts.0 -
If something is high in carbs, it is going to be high in calories. Cutting down on carbs automatically reduces the number of calories. Having said that, some meats are high in calories and there aren't carbs in that, so there is the exception.
Anyway, if I've cut down on carbs, then I've eaten less calories. If I eat other things that aren't high in carbs to make up for the calorie loss, like vegetables, then I will have to eat quite a bit more and get full pretty quickly. My calorie intake is still reduced because I'm too full to eat all of my calories.
I lost 43 pounds and I did not limit myself only to certain foods. If I wanted some spaghetti or desserts for example, then I had some. I didn't count carbs and never really paid attention to anything but calories. I think I lost it pretty quickly...about 8 months to lose it. But, since I was realistic and ate what I wanted, I learned to manage my calorie intake and I've been able to maintain my weight for 5 months now. I don't ever recommend a low carb diet especially if it isn't something you can do for a long period of time.0 -
Facts are facts, huh?
Fact is, humans were eating grains long before farming happened. Why do you think they started farming them to begin with? Archaeological records show humans baking flatbreads on hot rocks over 30,000 years ago.
There isn't any evidence of “bread”, just ground plant material. The resulting paste/powder could have been baked, made into a porridge, or eaten as is by babies. It’s all supposition.As for "improved performance of low carb?" Controlled studies have shown that there is no improved performance, all other variables (exercise, caloric deficit, protein levels) held constant. It's fully a personal preference.
Wrong.
The "A TO Z: A Comparative Weight Loss Study:" http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/az.html
The peer-reviewed paper written in JAMA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
The video about the study:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVoAfter all, facts are facts.
Except when they're not.0 -
Your friend who lost weight counting carbs instead of calories may have also been eating low calories as a side effect of cutting out most carbs.
This is probably true. One carb is four calories. The average person might eat upwards of 200g carbs per day - if she was cutting that down to 20 that's eliminating 720 calories. Obviously parts of this are made up elsewhere, but if she was replacing carbs with vegetables and protein, she probably ate a lot less. Protein also has 4 calories per gram, but I find that it's harder to eat 75g protein in one sitting vs. 75g carbs.0 -
From your study:Facts are facts, huh?
Fact is, humans were eating grains long before farming happened. Why do you think they started farming them to begin with? Archaeological records show humans baking flatbreads on hot rocks over 30,000 years ago.
There isn't any evidence of “bread”, just ground plant material. The resulting paste/powder could have been baked, made into a porridge, or eaten as is by babies. It’s all supposition.As for "improved performance of low carb?" Controlled studies have shown that there is no improved performance, all other variables (exercise, caloric deficit, protein levels) held constant. It's fully a personal preference.
Wrong.
The "A TO Z: A Comparative Weight Loss Study:" http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/az.html
The peer-reviewed paper written in JAMA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
The video about the study:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVoAfter all, facts are facts.
Except when they're not.In all four groups, however, some participants lost up to 30 pounds.
Hmm, they were in the middle of regaining all that weight they lost when the study ended. Curious to see what would've happened had they let it go another 6 months.Although the Atkins group led in terms of the average number of pounds lost, this group also gained back more weight in the second half of the study than those in the three other groups. Gardner also noted that the women in the Atkins group had lost an average of almost 13 pounds after six months, but ended the one-year period with a final overall average loss of 10 pounds.
So, not a controlled experiment, either. Irrelevant to my argument about no metabolic advantage when all variables are accounted for, as this study didn't account for any of them.Women in the study had to prepare or buy all their own meals, and not everyone followed the diets exactly as the books laid out, just as in real life.0 -
If something is high in carbs, it is going to be high in calories. Cutting down on carbs automatically reduces the number of calories. Having said that, some meats are high in calories and there aren't carbs in that, so there is the exception.
Anyway, if I've cut down on carbs, then I've eaten less calories. If I eat other things that aren't high in carbs to make up for the calorie loss, like vegetables, then I will have to eat quite a bit more and get full pretty quickly. My calorie intake is still reduced because I'm too full to eat all of my calories.
I lost 43 pounds and I did not limit myself only to certain foods. If I wanted some spaghetti or desserts for example, then I had some. I didn't count carbs and never really paid attention to anything but calories. I think I lost it pretty quickly...about 8 months to lose it. But, since I was realistic and ate what I wanted, I learned to manage my calorie intake and I've been able to maintain my weight for 5 months now. I don't ever recommend a low carb diet especially if it isn't something you can do for a long period of time.
Both protein and carbs are 4 calories per gram. Fat has 7 calories per gram so this doesn't really make sense.
100 grams of baked potato have 21 grams of carbs, 94 calories.
100 grams of chicken (breast meat) has 23 grams of protein at 110 calories.
Something that is high in fat would be even higher in calories.0 -
Fat's actually 9 calories per gram. It's alcohol that's 7 calories per gram. :drinker:0
-
Fat's actually 9 calories per gram. It's alcohol that's 7 calories per gram. :drinker:
Whoops, I meant that. Sorry. I even referenced to be sure and still typed it wrong. You are correct, thanks
0 -
Hmm, they were in the middle of regaining all that weight they lost when the study ended. Curious to see what would've happened had they let it go another 6 months.
Since all diets have lousy compliance issues, there would have probably been more quitters just like in the other diet groups. Your point is?So, not a controlled experiment, either. Irrelevant to my argument about no metabolic advantage when all variables are accounted for, as this study didn't account for any of them.
What do you mean by metabolic advantage? From a biochemical perspective, there's a documented and clear-cut advantage. Gluconeogenesis results in a 43% energy loss of converting protein to glucose. Of course, that's not the only reason why low-carb results in better weight losses.
You are correct that this isn't a metabolic ward study, so we have no idea how much better low carb would have done if all the diets were force fed and subjects monitored 24-hours a day over a year. This study was more of a realistic study of people left to their own devices. In other words: allowed to cheat. Even with cheating, Atkins beats them all for results. That's an advantage in my book.0 -
I have lost ALL of my weight on 40-60% carbs.0
-
My experience with eating low carb was it produced brain fog. I couldn't concentrate, I couldn't do math in my head, I couldn't do multi-step problem solving etc. Apparently my capacity for awesome smartistity is greater than my body's capacity to produce carb-based brain fuel.:laugh:0
-
I didn't read all 7 pages but it's just not true that because someone you know lost a lot of weight doing low carb that it works better. You are trying to draw a general conclusion from a specific instance. The data shows that low carb is no more effective for long term fat loss than a balanced diet and calorie restriction. There is no Metabolic Advantage to low carb. If that's the way you prefer to eat, go ahead. If not, don't.0
-
I didn't read every post so I may be repeating what someone said
My understanding is that very low carb diets create ketosis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis
This leads to weightloss that, in my observation, is very difficult to maintain.0 -
It's not about how fast you lose the weight. It's about creating a new, healthy lifestyle. Any diet where you restrict will work, but most of the time you will put the wieght right back on as soon as you re-introduce whatever you've cut out of your diet.
It doesn't matter how FAST you lose the weight if you don't keep it off.
Amen Sista!0 -
Going low carb reduces the fluid in your tissues. As soon as they start eating carbs again, that weight comes back. That's why I don't like any kind of fad diet. I can't imagine not having many carbs the rest of my life. I love food..Still wondering WHY if its calories in calories out that matter!! Why they are able to lose soo much faster??0 -
well, i started september 17 at 246 pounds, and right now im 183...so, 60-ish pounds in 6 months... i watch my caloies, and exercise, thats it.0
-
Hmm, they were in the middle of regaining all that weight they lost when the study ended. Curious to see what would've happened had they let it go another 6 months.
Since all diets have lousy compliance issues, there would have probably been more quitters just like in the other diet groups. Your point is?So, not a controlled experiment, either. Irrelevant to my argument about no metabolic advantage when all variables are accounted for, as this study didn't account for any of them.
What do you mean by metabolic advantage? From a biochemical perspective, there's a documented and clear-cut advantage. Gluconeogenesis results in a 43% energy loss of converting protein to glucose. Of course, that's not the only reason why low-carb results in better weight losses.
You are correct that this isn't a metabolic ward study, so we have no idea how much better low carb would have done if all the diets were force fed and subjects monitored 24-hours a day over a year. This study was more of a realistic study of people left to their own devices. In other words: allowed to cheat. Even with cheating, Atkins beats them all for results. That's an advantage in my book.
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
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".
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
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.
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. 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.0 -
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.0
-
For example a friend of mine started out weighing 215 she lost 75 lb in less than 6 months! Never have I heard of this being done counting calories! She was eating 20 grams of carbs a day & not counting calories just carbs!
I watch my calories in that I maintain a deficit: 1000 calories below what I burn each day (for first 6 months, now I've now switched to 900 cal/day deficit). I have lost more than 70 lbs in less than 6 months. And that is documented with doctor visits. And I know even more precisely than my calories what my carbs are because on Aug. 30 2012 I was diagnosed with diabetes. And as of last Tuesday, I'm off all medication and totally non-diabetic. I did it by counting carbs religiously. I ate between 130-190 net carbs (total carbs minus fiber) that entire time and still do.
I've read that studies show that insulin-resistant people do best on low carb diets and insulin-sensitive people do best on high/moderate carb diets. Yes the human body works the same for everyone, but the number of variables and medical conditions complicate it by an order of magnitude, so you just have to find what works for you. :flowerforyou:0 -
Hmm, they were in the middle of regaining all that weight they lost when the study ended. Curious to see what would've happened had they let it go another 6 months.
Since all diets have lousy compliance issues, there would have probably been more quitters just like in the other diet groups. Your point is?So, not a controlled experiment, either. Irrelevant to my argument about no metabolic advantage when all variables are accounted for, as this study didn't account for any of them.
What do you mean by metabolic advantage? From a biochemical perspective, there's a documented and clear-cut advantage. Gluconeogenesis results in a 43% energy loss of converting protein to glucose. Of course, that's not the only reason why low-carb results in better weight losses.
You are correct that this isn't a metabolic ward study, so we have no idea how much better low carb would have done if all the diets were force fed and subjects monitored 24-hours a day over a year. This study was more of a realistic study of people left to their own devices. In other words: allowed to cheat. Even with cheating, Atkins beats them all for results. That's an advantage in my book.
Lol0 -
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!!
Because when people cut out carbs they don't end up eating as much... and because some (most) carbs cause water retention.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions