Is a Low-Carb Diet for You? Most Likely Not.

I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

Let's see, the article conclusively states that low carb diets are probably not beneficial, while neglecting to actually talk about the benefits of a low carb diet. By that logic, I could make the case for anything not being beneficial by only focusing on its negative attributes and ignoring all of the positives. Probably my biggest problem with the article is that the author cherry picks a handful of studies and makes broad conclusions based on single studies, while a proper analysis of low carb diets would focus on the totality of studies and research. Now, one could conclude that it's possible they did not mention any benefits because there are none, but when there are papers such as http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf that cover numerous benefits attributable to low carb diets, it seems a bit odd that the author of the OP's article couldn't find a single benefit to low carb diets.

It also conclusively states you will feel like crap on a low carb diet, which to me suggests a clear bias given that such a statement is a) completely subjective and b) definitely not true for everyone. The article further refers to a single study when discussing muscle loss (and anytime an article has a single citation for a broad conclusion should set off alarm bells) and concludes that a low carb diet "means slower muscle growth — or even muscle loss", while ignoring the vast number of studies that conclude low carb diets are actually protective of lean body mass.

That alone I would attribute to misinformation, as I'm not aware of a single study that suggests carb intake in and of itself is a leading factor in lean body mass retention. I mean, seriously, consider this quote from the blog/article:

When you get enough carbs to meet your needs, you replenish muscle glycogen and create an anabolic (building-up) hormonal environment. You get strong and buff. That’s good.

So eating carbs will make you strong and buff, while eating a low carb diet will lead to muscle loss? That's literally what the article says, but who know it was really that simple. Not a good training regimen combined with proper protein intake, getting plenty of rest and eating a caloric surplus for muscle growth... instead, it's simply a matter of eating carbs that's the deciding factor in getting strong? It's a preposterous conclusion that simply is not supported by any research, at least that I'm aware of.

I could go on, but in short I feel that the article's conclusions are poorly supported by the totality of research and there's an obvious bias to the article.

I'm assuming you eat a lower carb diet than most or are you on a keto program?

For me personally, I'm eating a pretty low carb macro right now because I'm seeing good results and I don't have a reason to change my routine. I feel good, I'm still increasing my strength on all my lifts and weight has been coming off nicely, so my thinking is why try to fix what isn't broken. I suspect that I will eventually make some alterations to my routine at some point in the future, but I'm going to wait until I have a reason to make a change before actually making a change.

I'm not sure why we're talking about your intake, or anyone else specifically for that matter. I'm sure it's important to you, as it should be. Yay for your success and all that, but it doesn't really matter to me. As it happens, going low carb (below 120ish g/day for me) makes me feel awful. It really does affect my performance at the gym, but I don't expect you to care about that either. I don't really think it's important to the discussion even, except as an example of information that's irrelevant. Looking back the comments we can see people who like it and people who don't; it's kind of wash on that front.

As I said initially, there's some definite tone issues going on. I don't see the same conclusive statements that you do. I'm guessing that this because you're having such an extreme reaction to the bias. You want something that this blog post isn't trying to be at all. If you think something needs to be a comprehensive analysis of a topic and otherwise it's an attempt at deception by definition, then we just see things differently.

You can throw around terms like "cherry picked" and "poorly supported." I would go so far as to say that it's welcome....if you want to provide the information to counter it that will add to the discussion. Something at least. So far your responses can be summed up by saying "The blog's research isn't complete enough, but I'm not going to bother to add anything significant to the discussion aside from my disapproval of bias because the information is out there and shame on them for not reading my mind and predicting my objections. Afterall it's his responsibility."

It comes across both not terribly helpful and shrill.

How long did you go low carb for? You WILL feel awful if you go low carb for only a few days to a few weeks. This phase is known as induction or keto flu. It goes away.

MOST PEOPLE DO BEST WITH SOME CARBS.

About 70% of you will do really well with PN’s standard hand-size portion guidelines. (See our Calorie Control Guide for more.)

Around 25% of you will do really well increasing or reducing your carb servings by just a little bit. This is what we call eating for your body type, and we outline our recommendations here.

Advertorial / link bait, been popping up all over the place.

But it's good to see they give men twice as much to eat as women.

You're essentially just cherry picking what you find objectionable and discounting everything as result. I assume that's your problem with the Blog's author did, yes?

I don't know why you think I'm discounting everything in the article. Just because I'm pointing out certain statements that are, quite simply, wrong (e.g., carbs makes you strong and buff, while low carbs leads to muscle loss) doesn't mean I disagree with absolutely everything the author of the article said. I don't know why you would assume that's the case. My biggest issue (which we've already addressed and I don't think I am disagreeing with the OP at this point) is that a biased article only pointing out certain negatives, ignoring all of the positives and misrepresenting some aspects is not (at least in and of itself) the most useful reading material for someone trying to decide "is a low-carb diet for you?"

You're essentially just cherry picking what you find objectionable and discounting everything as result. I assume that's your problem with the Blog's author did, yes?

I don't know why you think I'm discounting everything in the article. Just because I'm pointing out certain statements that are, quite simply, wrong (e.g., carbs makes you strong and buff, while low carbs leads to muscle loss) doesn't mean I disagree with absolutely everything the author of the article said. I don't know why you would assume that's the case. My biggest issue (which we've already addressed and I don't think I am disagreeing with the OP at this point) is that a biased article only pointing out certain negatives, ignoring all of the positives and misrepresenting some aspects is not (at least in and of itself) the most useful reading material for someone trying to decide "is a low-carb diet for you?"

Where you see some bias (and possibly deception?) I just see poor style. The point kind meanders and it could use a different title . I don't really consider that a misrepresentation of data as a function of bias. Nor do I really care about the bias one way or the other. It's a blog. Big shock. They're mostly editorial. I think elsewhere in the site, they categorically dismiss the idea of counting calories at all as being unsustainable. At least that was my impression. It doesn't much matter.

I really don't see anything wrong with the premise of the article as it's supported. The rest isn't all that important given the context.

I just started MFP, so for right now I'm just using the automatic settings. Some people who follow low carb diets readjust the auto settings because they think it needs to be lower in carbs and higher in protein. But I think it's fairly low on carbs as it is because in order to stay under your carb goal you really have to avoid processed/junk food and sugary snacks for the most part. For me personally I'm trying to cut down on carbs and get my protein up. I started today, and I can already see a huge difference. If I eat a bowl of pasta, for example, I'll be hungry an hour later. But I can eat a piece of meat for the same number of calories and be satisfied for hours. Plus, processed grains, even if they're "whole" grains, aren't really good for you anyway. If you eat a clean, whole foods diet, you're going to end up pretty low carb anyway, unless you just happen to enjoy eating a whole lot of fruit. In terms of the people who go super low carb and won't even touch a banana, I don't know if that's necessary but if that's what some people are into and it's working for them then good for them. Just do whatever works for you and don't worry about what everybody else is doing.

lisawinning, low-carb diets are not about lifting your protein levels. You should be lifting your fat levels. Protein should remain the same as it was prior to changing to low-carb... unless this was too much already. Protein is not a fuel. Fat or carbs are the two fuel sources.

I would like to know if anyone has literally eliminated all carbohydrates from their diet. Maybe I will google it.
eta: everything I find is about low carb diets

I found this: An early proponent of an all animal-based diet was Icelandic-Canadian explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson (1879–1962), who lived with the Inuit for some time and witnessed their diet as essentially consisting of meat and fish, with very few carbohydrates—just berries during the summer. Stefansson and a friend later volunteered for a one year experiment at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City to prove he could thrive on a diet of nothing but meat, meat fat, and internal organs of animals.[1] His progress was closely monitored and experiments were done on his health throughout the year. At the end of the year, he did not show any symptoms of ill health; he did not develop scurvy, which many scientists had expected to manifest itself only a few months into the diet due to the lack of vitamin C in muscle meat. However, Stefansson and his partner did not eat just muscle meat but also fat, raw brain, raw liver (a significant source of vitamin C and others), and other varieties of offal.

I would like to know if anyone has literally eliminated all carbohydrates from their diet. Maybe I will google it.

Dr Eric Westman has clients on 20 grams of what Americans call "total carbohydrate". The difference between that and zero is probably insignificant.

I would like to know if anyone has literally eliminated all carbohydrates from their diet. Maybe I will google it.

Dr Eric Westman has clients on 20 grams of what Americans call "total carbohydrate". The difference between that and zero is probably insignificant.

Thanks

I would like to know if anyone has literally eliminated all carbohydrates from their diet. Maybe I will google it.
eta: everything I find is about low carb diets

I found this: An early proponent of an all animal-based diet was Icelandic-Canadian explorer Vilhjalmur Stefansson (1879–1962), who lived with the Inuit for some time and witnessed their diet as essentially consisting of meat and fish, with very few carbohydrates—just berries during the summer. Stefansson and a friend later volunteered for a one year experiment at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City to prove he could thrive on a diet of nothing but meat, meat fat, and internal organs of animals.[1] His progress was closely monitored and experiments were done on his health throughout the year. At the end of the year, he did not show any symptoms of ill health; he did not develop scurvy, which many scientists had expected to manifest itself only a few months into the diet due to the lack of vitamin C in muscle meat. However, Stefansson and his partner did not eat just muscle meat but also fat, raw brain, raw liver (a significant source of vitamin C and others), and other varieties of offal.

refuseresist, it is practically impossible to limit 100% carbs. You would be eating only a few items of food every day with very little variety. That is completely unsustainable and only sets you up for failure.

I average around 5-10gms of carbs per day when I am properly in ketosis. But that is hard work to maintain and requires some serious mojo to keep it up for a long term period. The most I got was 18months.

I currently do around 10gms of carbs per day. Not nett carbs but real carbs.

Interesting, so 'nett' carbs would be lower than that? Yikes

This content has been removed.

Can you tell me why there are requirements by the body to have fat and protein but we can live well with absolutely no carbs? I suggest you get informed. As for needing carbs for exercise, that has been proven to be false. The body converts fat and protein to glucose just fine. Think of eskimos - protein and fat and no carbs and they are healthy. We eat a lot of carbs and this nation is getting fatter and fatter.

You really want your body to break down muscle tissue to convert to glucose for energy? Not me

Nor do most people following low carb diets. Given that's not what happens to people on a standard low carb diet though, I'm not really sure what your point is.

Please supply links to studies that show this not happening.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/9

Ketogenic diets actually help preserve lean body mass during caloric deficits better than high carbohydrate diets.

"...ketone bodies exert a restraining influence on muscle protein breakdown. If the muscle is plentifully supplied with other substrates for oxidation (such as fatty acids and ketone bodies, in this case), then the oxidation of muscle protein-derived amino acids is suppressed."

I think we are all aware of the low-fat/fat free movement in the 80's. What resulted from that was the companies taking advantage of the situation and marketing products as fat free. From there, people had the mindset that they could eat as much of the "fat-free" food as they wanted and they would be fine. Most of the products were usually snack type foods which were high in carbs and had very little nutritional value. As a result, the obesity trend continued.

So, the suggestion of lowering carbs was then introduced.

Low Carb diets and their demonstrated success far precede the 1980's but whatever.

Also, "people had the mindset that they could eat as much of the "fat-free" food as they wanted and they would be fine"? Not really. Low-fat foods, regardless of overall nutritional value, don't promote satiety. At all. People eat more of them because they're still hungry. Period.

Although more long-term studies are needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn, it appears, from most literature studied, that a VLCARB is, if anything, protective against muscle protein catabolism during energy restriction, provided that it contains adequate amounts of protein.


I have no problem with short term keto diets for some people. I, personally, don't see the point unless there are medical reasons for it. However, there isn't enough supporting evidence for long-term keto diets that span several years.

I agree that there could be more research in this area (and I think that research is starting to emerge), but the few longer-term studies I have seen haven't given any red flags or warning signs about LCHF diets in the long-term. With regard to muscle loss, I can't imagine why this would change if you haven't seen muscle loss after a few months. If that was going to happen, I have to believe it would happen well before a year is up.

As for the point behind following such a diet, there's a reason why many (although not all) people can lose weight on LCHF diets without even counting calories - these diets tends to be very satiating and you avoid the cycle of snacking on carbs, spiking your blood sugar, and triggering your appetite. To me that's the biggest reason to follow such a diet and certainly I think it's the most practical advantage to such a diet. I see posts on these forums every day about people who are losing motivation or have failed in the past because they're constantly hungry and otherwise unhappy while trying to lose weight, but I rarely see someone on a LCHF diet complaining that they are going hungry. More frequently if there's a problem on a LCHF diet when I snoop on friends' food diaries, it's that I see some people undereating or neglecting their protein macro. Hunger is almost never a problem.

While on paper you could argue that two men eating 1500 calories, one 30/30/40 and one "low carb," will both lose weight (how much weight they lose is debatable and another subject, haha), in practice you may find the "low carb" dieter eating 1500 calories is more satiated throughout the day while the 30/30/40 dieter is feeling hungry. I realize this is just an example but I see it play out this way all the time. So, in practice, I would argue you can cut at a more aggressive deficit while still feeling satiated on a low carb diet and that's a big advantage.

Of course, the trade-off is that you lose options in what you can eat and I'll admit that is a big negative for some people. That said, designing a weight-loss plan is all about compromises and finding the best fit for a particular individual. If your goal is to drop weight quickly in a way that spares lean body mass and you don't mind limiting what you can eat for a set amount of time, a LCHF diet can be a solid choice. I wholeheartedly believe that there are people out there who are happier feeling full throughout the day even if it means they have fewer food options, versus having the ability to eat whatever they want in limited portions but feeling hungry at the same caloric deficit. On the other hand, some people learn to live with feeling hungry from time to time, while others prefer to lose weight more slowly and with a less aggressive caloric deficit. I'm not saying any one choice is right for everyone, but I do think a LCHF diet can be an option worth considering for some people.

As for long-term success, I really think that comes down to your long-term outlook and what you do after you achieve your current goal. If you rest on your laurels and stop paying attention to your diet/exercise routine, you can probably expect to undo your weight loss, regardless of how you lost the weight.

I think there is a huge misunderstanding in the community on what "low-carb" actually means. Even in this post I've seen someone state they eat 30% carbs and someone stating that is low. IMO, I don't see that as being low.

I think we are all aware of the low-fat/fat free movement in the 80's. What resulted from that was the companies taking advantage of the situation and marketing products as fat free. From there, people had the mindset that they could eat as much of the "fat-free" food as they wanted and they would be fine. Most of the products were usually snack type foods which were high in carbs and had very little nutritional value. As a result, the obesity trend continued.

From there, research established that too many carbs were being consumed and that would be the cause of obesity. This generated from the highly processed, fat-free snacks people ate freely. So, the suggestion of lowering carbs was then introduced. In doing so, other macronutrients would then be added to compensate for the remaining calories needed. Protein and fat were then increased and people's health markers began to improve. Hence, lower carbs led to better health.

But, isn't this really false data? Wasn't the problem the poor diets to begin with which were extremely heavy on carbs and potentially void of fats and/or protein? So, is it really low carb or just eating food with better nutritional values? Is the switch to a perceived "low carb" diet really just a lowering from where it had gotten out of hand?

Agreed. I think more than concentrating really hard on lowering this or that, if people were to make sure they are getting better nutrition altogether and avoiding empty calories, lower carbs would be a by-product of that. I find I lose weight best when I follow this "concept" as it were and naturally my carb level was lowered because of it.