Low carbs special effect?

Agree with the above poster...the whole low carb fad is entirely over-hyped.

I recommend that you eat however many grams MFP suggests that you eat; if you eat too few carbs you'll have no energy to workout (or do anything else, for that matter). Although you might see the weight come off initially, once you start eating carbs again you'll gain it all back. And you will eventually start eating carbs again because a low-carb/carb-free diet isn't sustainable at all.

I'd recommend that you eat a balanced diet that includes ALL food groups.

If you want to avoid the insulin and blood sugar spikes that come with eating carbs, all you have to do is eat higher fiber carbs, or eat high carb foods with other foods that contain protein. Fiber and protein digest slower so the sugar is released into your system slower.

Unless you've been advised to do so by your doctor, there is no reason to go low carb other than personal preference.

Lifestyle changes .....I don't "diet" using low carb because that is not how I will eat in the future. I'm trying to make changes that I can keep permanently.

Here's what I'm trying for .....making sure to get enough protien .... trying to get some at every meal. Fats are not bad..... I come form the "old school" .... fat is bad, low fat is good .....NOT true. I'm trying to increase my fats.

Finally, carbs are not bad .... but I don't need an overabundance of them. American diets have changed (an not for the good) .... french fries & hamburgers ..... starchy potatotoes & white bread ...in the SAME meal. I try to make the bun whole wheat & skip the fries & go for salad instead. Someone here in MFP called this "carb re-hab"

A page of scientific references if you have some time on your hands - http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science

Most of those are comparisons to a low-fat diet. It's quite possible to not eat either low fat or low carb, ya know. And it's the sustainability factor that leads most experts to not recommend low carb. Of course it is possible to sustain it, but the fact is that most don't. In one of those studies, the participants didn't even eat as low carb as they were told.

I'm going to have to disagree that the low-carb is over-hyped. Or shall I say, low-grain. There's a lot of research out there that points to otherwise. If you look at all your fit Hollywood people, they all generally say the same thing: they follow a protein-rich, vegetable-rich, low to no grain diet.

I have never been an over-eater per se. But keeping grains to a minimum (i.e. one meal a day) helped me get 20 pounds off and maintain that weight for five years. If I "screw up", I see it on the scale, and I also feel lethargic. Some say 1200 calories is 1200 calories. But you can eat a lot more food @ 1200 calories if you're eating clean and unprocessed foods.

I don't think that's a great example. For example, Michael Phelps should be considered fit but he eats a ton of carbs.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20080813/the-olympic-diet-of-michael-phelps

Of course, his nutritional needs are different from the average Joe. You can also look at the nutritional macros for, say, professional bodybuilders, all of whom eat copious amount of carbs even when losing fat... arguably more efficiently than fit Hollywood people. The fact of the matter is there are a lot of possibilities all of which work. There are flaws with most of the so-called low-carb studies as well, one of which is failure to match protein intake but I'm not going to go through all of the studies. Not that I'd be exceptionally qualified to do so in any event. :laugh:

Probably the best way to put it is that an individual's carb requirements will vary. For the OP, if she can successfully lose weight and improve health markers with 80-100g of carbs daily, there's no need to switch to a low-carb diet trying for some non-specific metabolic advantage.

I'm going to have to disagree that the low-carb is over-hyped. Or shall I say, low-grain. There's a lot of research out there that points to otherwise. If you look at all your fit Hollywood people, they all generally say the same thing: they follow a protein-rich, vegetable-rich, low to no grain diet.

I have never been an over-eater per se. But keeping grains to a minimum (i.e. one meal a day) helped me get 20 pounds off and maintain that weight for five years. If I "screw up", I see it on the scale, and I also feel lethargic. Some say 1200 calories is 1200 calories. But you can eat a lot more food @ 1200 calories if you're eating clean and unprocessed foods.

A calorie deficit makes you lose fat. If you achieve that deficit by eating low carb, you'll lose fat. If you achieve it by eating high carb, you'll lose fat. The difference is water weight. Low carb as better initial results because you lose water weight quickly. The reason you feel lethargic and see it on the scale when you "screw up" and eat more carbs is because your body retains water when you do.

There is not a lot of research pointing to a low/no grain diet being healthier. There is a lot of research pointing to a diet that is low in overly processed grains being healthier. There is a lot of research pointing to whole grains being part of a healthy diet.

I'm going to have to disagree that the low-carb is over-hyped. Or shall I say, low-grain. There's a lot of research out there that points to otherwise. If you look at all your fit Hollywood people, they all generally say the same thing: they follow a protein-rich, vegetable-rich, low to no grain diet.

I have never been an over-eater per se. But keeping grains to a minimum (i.e. one meal a day) helped me get 20 pounds off and maintain that weight for five years. If I "screw up", I see it on the scale, and I also feel lethargic. Some say 1200 calories is 1200 calories. But you can eat a lot more food @ 1200 calories if you're eating clean and unprocessed foods.

I don't think that's a great example. For example, Michael Phelps should be considered fit but he eats a ton of carbs.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20080813/the-olympic-diet-of-michael-phelps

Of course, his nutritional needs are different from the average Joe. You can also look at the nutritional macros for, say, professional bodybuilders, all of whom eat copious amount of carbs even when losing fat... arguably more efficiently than fit Hollywood people. The fact of the matter is there are a lot of possibilities all of which work. There are flaws with most of the so-called low-carb studies as well, one of which is failure to match protein intake but I'm not going to go through all of the studies. Not that I'd be exceptionally qualified to do so in any event. :laugh:

Probably the best way to put it is that an individual's carb requirements will vary. For the OP, if she can successfully lose weight and improve health markers with 80-100g of carbs daily, there's no need to switch to a low-carb diet trying for some non-specific metabolic advantage.

I consider 80-100g of carbs a day to be pretty low. I try to stay around 100g a day and it's pretty difficult at times.

I'm going to have to disagree that the low-carb is over-hyped. Or shall I say, low-grain. There's a lot of research out there that points to otherwise. If you look at all your fit Hollywood people, they all generally say the same thing: they follow a protein-rich, vegetable-rich, low to no grain diet.

I have never been an over-eater per se. But keeping grains to a minimum (i.e. one meal a day) helped me get 20 pounds off and maintain that weight for five years. If I "screw up", I see it on the scale, and I also feel lethargic. Some say 1200 calories is 1200 calories. But you can eat a lot more food @ 1200 calories if you're eating clean and unprocessed foods.

I don't think that's a great example. For example, Michael Phelps should be considered fit but he eats a ton of carbs.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20080813/the-olympic-diet-of-michael-phelps

Of course, his nutritional needs are different from the average Joe. You can also look at the nutritional macros for, say, professional bodybuilders, all of whom eat copious amount of carbs even when losing fat... arguably more efficiently than fit Hollywood people. The fact of the matter is there are a lot of possibilities all of which work. There are flaws with most of the so-called low-carb studies as well, one of which is failure to match protein intake but I'm not going to go through all of the studies. Not that I'd be exceptionally qualified to do so in any event. :laugh:

Probably the best way to put it is that an individual's carb requirements will vary. For the OP, if she can successfully lose weight and improve health markers with 80-100g of carbs daily, there's no need to switch to a low-carb diet trying for some non-specific metabolic advantage.

I consider 80-100g of carbs a day to be pretty low. I try to stay around 100g a day and it's pretty difficult at times.

Yes, short of actually being in ketosis 80-100g of carb would probably already be considered low-carb. My response was only in the context of OP's question and perhaps should've been more clearly phrased as "there's no need to switch to a lower-carb diet".