Why does low carb work better then just eating whatever?

Bloat, water weight, sugar crash makes you eat more later, unless you weigh Carb portion estimates can be way out.

So basically Low carb does less things that can dishearten you or make you fail.

It's just your psychology. Everyone has different things that affect their appetite in a variety of ways.

When you lower your carbs a "side effect" will be lower calories unless you replace those calories with something else. Any "diet" only works because of a calorie deficit. For weight loss it's not going to matter where those calories come from as long as you are consuming less of them than you are burning.

In the short term carbs can cause you to retain water but over the long term it's really not going to matter much for strictly weight loss, body composition is a whole other thing all together.

When you're eating less carbs, do you make up for the caloric difference with other foods? I ask because if you're simply eliminating a large amount of calories via carbohydrates without replacing those calories elsewhere (protein, namely) then all you're doing is creating a larger calorie deficit, which of course means you'll lose weight more quickly.

If, however, you're eating (roughly) the same number of calories with or without carbs, I'd say it might have something to do with the body having less "easy" energy. Carbohydrates break down most quickly and are the first things used for fuel. If you're depriving your body of that easy energy it looks for other sources- protein and fat. That's why it's important to make sure you're eating adequate amounts of protein; you don't want your body consuming your lean body mass (muscle) for energy.

This is my (elementary) understanding of how it works; perhaps someone more educated in nutrition can expound on it, but I hope it helps, OP

There are many people who have some sort of carb intolerance with out knowing it. It may be possible you are one of them.

When you lower your carbs a "side effect" will be lower calories unless you replace those calories with something else. Any "diet" only works because of a calorie deficit. For weight loss it's not going to matter where those calories come from as long as you are consuming less of them than you are burning.

In the short term carbs can cause you to retain water but over the long term it's really not going to matter much for strictly weight loss, body composition is a whole other thing all together.

Aside from the lowering calorie effect. Carbs are useful in the body as a source for storing energy in muscles, the glycogen in muscles ranges from 250-700 g and has an additional 4-9 g of water per gram of glycogen. That's up to 3 kg of liquid storage in muscle tissue affected by low carb (add another kg in the liver) and any diet that affects this storage system will create an artificial loss. Not very sustainable in the long term, fine for short term losses.

^ This - artificial loss!

When you're eating less carbs, do you make up for the caloric difference with other foods? I ask because if you're simply eliminating a large amount of calories via carbohydrates without replacing those calories elsewhere (protein, namely) then all you're doing is creating a larger calorie deficit, which of course means you'll lose weight more quickly.

If, however, you're eating (roughly) the same number of calories with or without carbs, I'd say it might have something to do with the body having less "easy" energy. Carbohydrates break down most quickly and are the first things used for fuel. If you're depriving your body of that easy energy it looks for other sources- protein and fat. That's why it's important to make sure you're eating adequate amounts of protein; you don't want your body consuming your lean body mass (muscle) for energy.

This is my (elementary) understanding of how it works; perhaps someone more educated in nutrition can expound on it, but I hope it helps, OP

While carbs are used early in an effort - remember all three systems are in use at all times. Don't worry too much about what breaks down more quickly, in a normal diet, it is still a multi-hour process. Even pure glucose when ingested peaks at about 3/4 hr in blood levels.

It's not really "artificial" -it's just not fat loss. Not to mention, it only really occurs during the first week or so of a LCHF diet anyways, and has little do with the long-term. As for exercise, it really depends on what you do. If you're a sprinter, you will want some carbs, while endurance activities tend to be fine on a LCHF diet. I know some guys that will preload their lifting with some carbs (TKD), while others feel fine lifting on a standard LCHF diet.

As for why it works for some people, the main advantage of such diets is that you're simply satiated most of the time, even when eating at an aggressive caloric deficit. There are posts daily on this forum about people going to bed hungry, not getting enough to eat, etc. because they set too aggressive of a caloric deficit, and usually they're given the right answer of upping their calories a bit and taking things more slowly. On the other hand, those same people could likely get by just fine on their aggressive caloric deficit if eating a LCHF diet, as it's much less likely they'd go hungry on a daily basis. Of course, the downside is you have to give up certain foods, and some people prefer the freedom to eat whatever they want over being satiated or following a more aggressive caloric deficit. It's certainly not for everyone.

It's all very confusing! Everyone seems to have a different fund of knowledge when it comes to weight loss. It definitely is a matter of calories in/calories out but it also seems to be different for everyone in regards to how they make that happen. What it really comes down to is what can you live with? Yes, losing weight for your health and to look and feel good and doing it in the quickest way possible for you is great. But what about the long term? Can you give up those carbs forever? Because it's all about changing your lifestyle forever. You may go on a low carb diet and exercise daily for 2 hours but is that something you can sustain forever? I know that when I cut down on carbs and calories I lose weight. But I also know that I would miss those carbs if I told myself I could never eat them again. And what happens when I lose all the weight I want to lose and then go back to eating my carbs that I have missed? I gain weight. So, for me, it's about finding the lifestyle that I can live with forever. It's a long time, I know. I am still looking for the one I can live with. I'm working on it. Good luck to you! :happy:

That's what works for me also. Plenty of people will say calories in/calories out. I'm not going to argue with them about it, I know what works for me. Everyone is different.

no, everyone is not different. The laws of thermodynamics and math apply to all of us. There are no special snowflakes that can eat more than they burn and lose weight.

Again, if low carb helps you create a calorie deficit, great…but don't go around saying that it is not calories in vs calories out bc that is wrong and confuses people.

You beat me to it.... ^^^

I love how people keep talking about the laws of Thermodynamics and use only the first law to apply it to humans.. The first law says that work, heat and changes in chemical composition will be constant. People are not like that. You have to use the second law which is a dissipation law which takes into account chemical reactions, changes in Gibbs free energy, ΔG, whose sign predicts the direction of reaction, and whose magnitude indicates the maximum amount of work realizable from the reaction.

Basically different things you eat are burned differently do to chemical composition and the way your body processes it. It will never be as simple as calories in/calories out no mater how many times people chant about it on here.

That being said.. you still need a calorie deficit to lose weight..

I love how people keep talking about the laws of Thermodynamics and use only the first law to apply it to humans.. The first law says that work, heat and changes in chemical composition will be constant. People are not like that. You have to use the second law which is a dissipation law which takes into account chemical reactions, changes in Gibbs free energy, ΔG, whose sign predicts the direction of reaction, and whose magnitude indicates the maximum amount of work realizable from the reaction.

Basically different things you eat are burned differently do to chemical composition and the way your body processes it. It will never be as simple as calories in/calories out no mater how many times people chant about it on here.

That being said.. you still need a calorie deficit to lose weight..

It is all about cals in or out if you need a deficit to lose. the issue is the calculation for calories in and out, with out being much more variable and next to impossible to get it exact.

It's not really "artificial" -it's just not fat loss. Not to mention, it only really occurs during the first week or so of a LCHF diet anyways, and has little do with the long-term. As for exercise, it really depends on what you do. If you're a sprinter, you will want some carbs, while endurance activities tend to be fine on a LCHF diet. I know some guys that will preload their lifting with some carbs (TKD), while others feel fine lifting on a standard LCHF diet.

As for why it works for some people, the main advantage of such diets is that you're simply satiated most of the time, even when eating at an aggressive caloric deficit. There are posts daily on this forum about people going to bed hungry, not getting enough to eat, etc. because they set too aggressive of a caloric deficit, and usually they're given the right answer of upping their calories a bit and taking things more slowly. On the other hand, those same people could likely get by just fine on their aggressive caloric deficit if eating a LCHF diet, as it's much less likely they'd go hungry on a daily basis. Of course, the downside is you have to give up certain foods, and some people prefer the freedom to eat whatever they want over being satiated or following a more aggressive caloric deficit. It's certainly not for everyone.

Or a LCHP diet.

Sure, but I would almost consider that more restrictive than a LCHF diet where you are still hitting your protein macro daily. At some point, you may get tired of chicken breast and shrimp as your main source of energy. :laugh:

It's not really "artificial" -it's just not fat loss. Not to mention, it only really occurs during the first week or so of a LCHF diet anyways, and has little do with the long-term. As for exercise, it really depends on what you do. If you're a sprinter, you will want some carbs, while endurance activities tend to be fine on a LCHF diet. I know some guys that will preload their lifting with some carbs (TKD), while others feel fine lifting on a standard LCHF diet.

As for why it works for some people, the main advantage of such diets is that you're simply satiated most of the time, even when eating at an aggressive caloric deficit. There are posts daily on this forum about people going to bed hungry, not getting enough to eat, etc. because they set too aggressive of a caloric deficit, and usually they're given the right answer of upping their calories a bit and taking things more slowly. On the other hand, those same people could likely get by just fine on their aggressive caloric deficit if eating a LCHF diet, as it's much less likely they'd go hungry on a daily basis. Of course, the downside is you have to give up certain foods, and some people prefer the freedom to eat whatever they want over being satiated or following a more aggressive caloric deficit. It's certainly not for everyone.

Or a LCHP diet.

Sure, but I would almost consider that more restrictive than a LCHF diet where you are still hitting your protein macro daily. At some point, you may get tired of chicken breast and shrimp as your main source of energy. :laugh:

Most certainly. (Are you reading my mind?)