why do ppl do low carb for weight loss?

I know that for me it's not the amount of carbs but the type of carbs. If I eat veggies - those come with fiber, they fill me up, and I feel great. If I eat bread, on the other hand, or sugary sweets - I get a sugar rush, then a crash and I want more, more, more and it's very difficult for me to control how much I eat. And obviously healthy fats and proteins are good for you too, so I have plenty of room for those foods as well if I'm not overdoing carbs.

I still end up with something like 100g of carbs a day, but also like 60+g of fiber, so I don't get the sugar rushes, and don't feel hungry and it's easy to for me to maintain. I don't really have to weigh things like that - I'm not going to overeat raw green beans or whatever to the point where I gain weight, so I can estimate and it comes out close enough. When I was eating starchy carbs, I'd really have to strictly watch portion sizes to keep it under control and felt hungry all the time.

I realize not everyone suffers from the same cravings and such. So if you can eat those things in moderation without a struggle, I wouldn't sweat it. If you're constantly craving more, it might be worth looking into reducing sugary/starchy carbs to see if it makes things easier for you. Sounds like you don't need to worry about it, but maybe the above helps make it make sense why some people do.

Through trial, error and successes, I do best steering clear of breads, pasta and starchy veggies as well. My daily carb intake usually ends up somewhere between 80 to 100g's per day. It works for me and also keeps me from having to measure and weight meticulously. It's really really difficult to overeat raw broccoli.

I already answered this for you a few pages back, ironanimal ~ my brother lost 7st while eating 3,000 calories plus on a typical day. None of us had ever calculated his calorific intake before, I did it today just out of curiosity & because you'd asked.
Clearly you won't believe anything you are told, you've simply decided it's not possible and so don't believe all the things low carb/keto dieters are saying.
If low calorie/low fat is soooo ingrained upon you that you truly cannot see any other way, then I can understand that you find it hard to believe that calories play no part in a low carb diet; but 3,000 calories a day and *still* losing 7st?
He did try low cal/low fat, but was always hungry and miserable - and who can carry on like that long-term if they've over 100lbs to lose?

I must admit that I never lost as fast as my brother, maybe only half as much, but he was a lot heavier than me.

Maybe understanding the basics of low carb might help - that the body is forced to use FAT as fuel, not carbohydrates....both dietary *and* body fat.

For some people "low carb" is bumper sticker weight loss. They don't need to learn anything except, carbs are bad..... really, really bad. These "people" don't want to (or don't think they need to) learn anything about food ..... just carbs are bad..... really, really bad. Just cut out 1 thing .... and all their problems go away.

This was the low fat diet thing back in the day .....when all fats were created equal and ....fats were bad..... really, really bad.

Just FYI, those of us doing low carb aren't stupid, and most of us have done extensive research to find what works best with our bodies. My doctor reccomended it, and I am pretty sure she isn't stupid either. :noway:

You will notice ..... it says SOME people ..... not EVERY person. I do not assume that there aren't people who have to adapt to a low carb lifestyle (diabetics for example) .....just as I don't assume every low carber is educated.

There are informed people & uninformed people in all walks of life.

When I said bumper sticker approach...... what I meant was ..... those people who do not log food, do not measure food, and many don't bother to exercise, they just cut carbs .... that's all they do. There are people like that .... and they are not here (obviously). MFP would be too much effort.

Just FYI, those of us doing low carb aren't stupid, and most of us have done extensive research to find what works best with our bodies.

They think it's a quick way to lose weight, when really, as soon as you touch carbs again, you will probably blow up like a balloon

I tried eating low carbs with the Atkins diet. It really worked for me as far as loosing fast. The only thing is that I really wanted the other foods that I used to eat like bread, pasta, and sweets. As soon as I started to eat them in proportion I gained all my weight back and then some. I guess whatever balanced diet that a person chooses for themselves, it has to work for "them" and be a lifestyle. It just didn't work for me. After reading this, I am however going to try to limit my intake of carbs because that's when "I" gain weight the most. I do agree with the person that said when you eat them you crave more, but I know for me, I like eating carbs and sweets so I don't think I can give it up completely but I am working towards limiting them in a balance way

Hey Tamika -- I found a bunch of recipes here and by just googling low-carb bread. I make pancakes, muffins, and different kinds of bread that have 1-2 net carbs. And they are tastier than the store-bought ones. They are made from ground flax and nut flours. I even grind my own almonds rather than buy the almond flour (cheaper). These treats have kept me from feeling deprived of breads or sweets. Try OOPSIE bread. There is even a uTube video demonstrating how to make it--very easy and delicious. Even my skinny hubby loves it. It is cheap to make: eggs and cream cheese only.

Good luck with your food management! Hey--we might be long lost cousins--I was a Thompson too. lol

This is a well known phenomenon known as "carb flu" or "induction flu". While your body is becoming fat-adapted you may not feel as good for a week or two, but if you stick it out you will feel a-m-a-z-i-n-g after that.

While some may need to go this route to lose, I would say the majority of people that go this route are simply uneducated and don't realize you can still enjoy carbs and lose weight.

My husband did Mark Sisson's Primal Blueprint and lost 45 and has kept it off for almost 2 years. Although he was very strict during the initial weight loss he now eats chips,cookies,drinks beer and doesn't gain weight. Obviously he doesn't eat them every day but he's proven that cutting carbs equals sustainable weightloss.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that low carb is not sustainable for anyone. Just that most do not sustain it.

But, if your husband now eats a lot of carbs, how did he prove that low carb is sustainable for him? It sounds more like he proved he doens't need to give up carbs to maintain a healthy weight.

This is just in from National Geographic:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/08/sugar/cohen-text

It confirms that the boogeyman is Fructose, also known as fruit sugar. Fructose is in almost every fruit and plant we eat, although obviously the percentage is highest in fruits. When you eat low carb, you automatically eat low Fructose as well as long as you properly count the carb in fruits.

Yeah, fructose is something that some researchers are looking into.

Having done a lot of reading on the subject (I can be geeky that way) the issue with fructose doesn't seem to be saying to run screaming from fruit. It is perhaps a good reason to start wondering about high fructose corn syrup being placed into so many things these days. From what I've read, the center of research on the subject seems to arise from the way that fructose is metabolized by the body. (And I'm going to be really oversimplyfing this. I realize there's all sorts of things concerning ATP that I'm bypassing. I know that I'm over simplifying to an extreme degree, but it's complicated).

Fructose can only be metabolilzed by the liver, which does so by more or less splitting fructose into both glucose and fat. So basically, in order for your body to deal with fructose at all, part of it has to be turned into fat. The rest is turned into glucose.

Glucose can be absorbed without being shunted off to your liver the way that fructose is (where, again, fructose is turned into glucose + fat as the method of dealing with it). All the heavy work out folks complaining about low carb diets, saying that they have to have the carbs for their workouts, there's truth to that. Aerobic exercises depletes your glycogen stores in your muscles. If you're eating carbs, your body has a quick, efficient way to smoothely replinish the glycogen.

Where you start running into some of the low carb concept is that when glucose isn't readily available to replenish glycogen, your body can begin converting part of your consumed protein or consumed fat or can even start burning your body fat (or muscle) to do so. But, as your body prefers to use glucose -- and there are reasons for that that I'll get to in a minute -- if you have a lot of glucose available, you're body is going to default to the glucose first.

Burning fat or protein is far less efficient than converting readily available glucose, so if your focus is on athletic performance, you probably prefer the readily available carbs. If your object is to burn off fat stores that you already have, you may be willing to sacrifice atheltic performance for fat burning.

Where fructose comes in is that, again, the only part of your body capable of dealing with fructose is your liver. Fructose cannot be converted into glycogen without first having been metabolized by the liver which "splits" it into fat and glucose.

Sucrose (old fashioned table sugar) is metabolized by first splitting it into fructose and glucose, with the fructose then having to be split into fat and glucose.

Factoring this out into an equation (that is NOT proportionally accurate, it's just a 'thought experiment' representation), in order for your body to metabolize these sugars what you roughly have is something like

glucose = glucose
fructose = glucose + fat
sucrose = glucose + (glucose+fat)

So if your object is to replish glycogen stores for atheltic performance, best choice may be starchy carbs. Your body can metabolize it most efficiently and your liver doesn't immediately convert part of it to fat.

Flipping this around, though, fructose -- PURE fructose -- which is handled by the liver isn't regulated by insulin, meaning it's going to be far slower to trigger an insulin response than something starchy (after all, your liver has to 'convert' fructose into fat and glucose first). This is why less starchy fruits are lower on the glycemic index than starchy ones.

Once you start getting into insulin issues, however, you start talking about a whole host of other things.

Excesss glucose in your bloodstream is bad. It's toxic. That's diabetes. A healthy body prevents there being too much sugar in your bloodstream by releasing insulin which tells your body to stop poking around,burning your fat, etc, and burn this excess blood sugar instead. Right NOW! It keeps your blood sugar in the heathy range by your muscles using what they can burning through glycogen, your body fat absorbing/expanding as it can, and other parts of it converted into triglycerides (fat) in your blood. When you're body more or less goes '*ahem* I'm aborbing all that I can!' and there's still yet. more. suger., your body makes yet MORE insulin trying to try to make your cells absorb the excess... and now you're on the way to insulin resistance, requiring more and more insulin to accomplish the same result until your pancreas cries uncle because it's taking more insulin than it can produce to lower your blood sugar... at which point you are the owner of Type 2 diabetes.

So the resulting contradictions are that glucose stimulates your insulin faster than fructose, which stimulates your body to deal with the blood sugar NOW, which -- if you're taking in more sugar than your brain and muscles need -- is stored as fat.

Fructose on the other hand, doesn't immediately stimulate insulin, but to handle it at all, part of it is metabolized as fat ...and part of it is turned into glucose which in turn stimulates insulin, and so on.

So basically, what you're left with is: your body needs glucose but not too much glucose (and how much you need is going to depend on how much you're burning). Try to avoid sugar spikes. You don't want to over-stimulate insulin. You don't want more glucose in your bloodstream than your body can use. So yeah, calories in/calories out is part of the equation.

Now the pro-side of fruit is that between the FIBER they contain and the fact that fructose doesn't immediately stimulate an insulin response, fruit it a bit of a time release capsule. Your blood sugar load is strung out over a longer period of time which minimizes sugar spikes by spreading it out. This was the way that your body was meant to behave (and it's the way that your body deals with fructose, but yeah, to metabolize it, it's still going to be split into fat and glucose).

Glucose is handled far more efficiently by the body, but excessive amounts of it are going to cause sugar spikes that will stimulate insulin that... well, we've been there already.

Basically, don't overconsume.

Eat fruit. It has a lot to recommend it.

But maybe think about avoiding high fructose corn syrup. It looks like it could possibly be the worst of both worlds... but that hasn't been proven which why they're researching the subject.

but a lot of people dont eat low carb and arent overweight?
so then why would carbs make some humans fat but not all of them?
just had this thought today at work
corworker is doing a low carb diet to lose weight
and there i was shoveling rice in my mouth and just shrugging. works for me.