CARBS???

No one has said it doesnt work.
I have lost 27 is 7 weeks on a diff program that doesnt do anything other than reduce calories.

I have done the low carb thing in the past and it didnt teach me anything when I got to where I wanted to go other than restricting carbs, and anything that can be that restricting can be a tough thing to follow for a lifetime. I know there is some program to slowly increase them but the tougher things are the more people mess them up.

Even you mention how it is about less calories than you burn. If someone can do the same by not limiting really any food then that can be a more sustainable program than the low carb.

Not always true, especially for those with glucose metabolism issues. And restricting carbs for many actually helps them maintain a caloric deficit more easily because fat and protein are highly satiating and they aren't eating as many food with empty calories (often found in high carb foods).

So, you may not like the source of the material, but there are solid reasons for the advice. Can't say the same for your completely empty ridicule.

So you want to disagree with his comment that weight loss is about caloris in vs calories out by stating that restricting carbs HELPS THEM MAINTAIN A CALORIC DEFICIT?

Makes sense to me.

Give me 100 subjects who lost weight by simply reducing caloric intake and eating what they chose and 100 subjects who did it by going low carb and you can be the former will stick with it longer down the road.

I'm saying that they're both legitimate paths, depending on the individual circumstances. Some will find sheer caloric deficit sufficient, others will need to manipulate the deficit in very specific ways to (1) see comparable results and (2) maintain the change in the long term.

For those with glucose metabolism issues, restricting carbs is almost a must (though the amount of restriction greatly varies) -- go talk to people with diabetes, insulin resistance, PCOS, etc. and you'll see this is a common path. And considering that over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance in the pre-diabetic or diabetic category, there a LOT of people with such issues -- and many of them are undiagnosed and unaware of such issues -- both for themselves personally as well as how incredibly common they are in the population at large. And I bet of people significantly over weight (30+ lbs), it's even more common as insulin resistance makes it easier to put on weight and harder to take it off.

But, hey, just ignore all those real-world issues and keep spouting your one-way-is-the-only-way rhetoric.

Never said my way is the only way. Nice try though.

More sustainable? Cutting carbs or simply eating at a caloric deficit?
Did the low carb, worked like a charm, but when ya get back into the real life of eating it wasnt so fancy.

You present a false argument. You say I was arguing against a caloric deficit -- when I was doing nothing of the sort. Merely pointing out the restricting carbs can be helpful for many ways and that a mere caloric deficit will not be enough for SOME people to see the same results and maintain in the longterm.

You may have found cutting carbs to be more difficult than just a caloric deficit. I found it to be the EXACT opposite. Different people with different issues. Both paths can lead to success, depending on the individual's needs.

Cutting carbs wasnt that difficult, just limited the foods to eat and in the long run wasnt as sustainable as just whatever I want at a deficit.

Nothing wrong with restricting carbs if you find it easier to adhere to, but Sisson's graph is utter nonsense. Plenty have lost significant weight while consuming levels of carbs that he claims will result in "insidious weight gain".

So it's got a flaw. I noted that in my original post about it:

Bear in mind, the ranges provided are going to be higher if you are very active. And I'm not sure the statement that you will gain weight if you eat more than 150 g is completely true. I think what really happens is that if you eat less than 150 g/day, your body can burn all of the glucose and does not need to store it as fat. More than 150 g/day and you are storing some of the glucose as fat. If you're eating at a deficit, you can still lose weight. But you'll be producing new fat cells at the same time that you're trying to burn the old fat cells, making weight loss or maintenance harder. That's just my interpretation, I may be wrong.

Again, doesn't make it ridiculous. It's a place to start.

It's ridiculous because it is completely made up and bears no resemblance to reality. His knowledge of human physiology is laughable. Create new fat cells while losing weight? Really?

The number of fat cells in your body remains constant, whether lean or obese.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/NR-08-05-01.html

I suggest you read the Primal Blueprint (by the same author that writes MarksDailyApple.com). This book mostly promotes a paleo lifestyle, but I'm recommending it because he does a good job explaining what carbs have to do with weight management.

Thank you for a useless response. So supportive and helpful.
Really, this thread was actually doing very well at just offering advice and not putting down people's opinions. It's a good thing you're around to screw that all up

About as useful as relying on Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve.

Weight loss is about calories in vs calories out. Period. If you are in a caloric deficit you will lose weight, regardless of whether or not you restrict carbs.

How much have you lost? I've lost 20 lbs in 8 weeks following "Sisson's ridiculous carbohydrate curve".
Yes, you need to have a calorie deficit. For an awful lot of people eating less carbs makes it easier to do so. The carb curve provides guidance to figure out where to start. Perhaps you should do a little reading on the topic before putting down these ideas. If it's not for you, that's your business. But thousands have found that Sisson's (and Taubes', and Atkins') advise works. And others have found that it doesn't, I'm aware of that. But that just means people are diverse. It doesn't make it ridiculous.

Edit: One more fact: According to MFP I should only be losing about 1 lbs/week based on my calorie deficit. I'm averaging 2.5 lbs/week. There's something else going on here. Could be the lower carbs, could be something else. Either way, it's more than just calorie deficit.

might wanna take it easy throwing around your losses and asking what other people have lost in a judgmental way. your start date and your ticker make that an interesting statement for you to make.

perhaps your rapid weight loss can be contributed, in part, to the fact that you have quite a bit to lose. it IS due to calorie deficit and that rate will slow down as you continue to lose.