A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.

I'm unclear as to how that is special and not just part of the normal bell curve distribution you would expect from a large population. No one claims that what is written on a box in terms of calories is the exact amount of energy that everyones body extracts from that, however it IS going to be a percent modifier...meaning that if you pick up the box with 300 calories in it verses 150 calories in it that you will get twice the number of calories even if your body only efficiently processes 75% of them. Its all relative so the numbers on the box are still informative.

then you misunderstood what i said. after calculating my BMR/RMR using the standard methods and comparing that to my oTDEE, my BMR is only approximately 75% of the expected calculations. which means in order to create a large enough caloric deficit to result in the "normal", expected rates of loss, i have to drop down below 1,000 calories a day to lose half a pound per week, and below 750 per day to lose 1 pound per week. that's unsustainable and dangerous, and a pretty clear indication that either something is wrong, either medically or genetically.

besides, if you had a machine (of any type) that was only working at 75% efficiency, 75% speed, or 75% capacity, you'd want to get it fixed, wouldn't you? if it was within 90% of the specs, you probably wouldn't complain too much. but imagine if your car only got 75% of its expected gas mileage, or only went 75% of the speed noted on the speedometer... you'd call that out of the ordinary, not "part of the normal bell-curve distribution."

Of course you have to track your intake, of course you have to track your weight loss and then backcalculate to determine your maintenance to establish your deficit for you personally. If you actually read the main forum posts that is exactly what people say to do.

i love how people assume i fell off the turnip truck yesterday and don't know what the frack i'm doing.:explode:

CICO doesn't mean that the number on a food box is the exact energy that your body extracts CICO means A) establish what your maintenance level is on the basis of those values THEN establish a consistant deficit. If you don't do step A then you can't be suprised when step B doesn't work.

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

What I'm hearing is that Calories In - Calories Out would cause you to lose or gain weight.

However, your particular metabolism makes it impossible for you to lose weight while supporting your nutritional needs.

Metabolic condishuns effect like .03% of the population. Not every ****en obese person has one. Their biggest problem is: overeating. Duh. Calories in> out is 100% effective for pretty much everyone. Its just people don't want to stop eating too much. Whatever the reason and there are valid reasons. But that's a different conversation. Its simple math and physics.

Lindsey argues that they affect >40% of the population.

What happened to:

(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption) which does not give a very solid comparison. If the test group focused on fat was given a more restrictive fat level (<15%), I wonder what the results would be?

for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.

I'm unclear as to how that is special and not just part of the normal bell curve distribution you would expect from a large population. No one claims that what is written on a box in terms of calories is the exact amount of energy that everyones body extracts from that, however it IS going to be a percent modifier...meaning that if you pick up the box with 300 calories in it verses 150 calories in it that you will get twice the number of calories even if your body only efficiently processes 75% of them. Its all relative so the numbers on the box are still informative.

then you misunderstood what i said. after calculating my BMR/RMR using the standard methods and comparing that to my oTDEE, my BMR is only approximately 75% of the expected calculations. which means in order to create a large enough caloric deficit to result in the "normal", expected rates of loss, i have to drop down below 1,000 calories a day to lose half a pound per week, and below 750 per day to lose 1 pound per week. that's unsustainable and dangerous, and a pretty clear indication that either something is wrong, either medically or genetically.

besides, if you had a machine (of any type) that was only working at 75% efficiency, 75% speed, or 75% capacity, you'd want to get it fixed, wouldn't you? if it was within 90% of the specs, you probably wouldn't complain too much. but imagine if your car only got 75% of its expected gas mileage, or only went 75% of the speed noted on the speedometer... you'd call that out of the ordinary, not "part of the normal bell-curve distribution."

Of course you have to track your intake, of course you have to track your weight loss and then backcalculate to determine your maintenance to establish your deficit for you personally. If you actually read the main forum posts that is exactly what people say to do.

i love how people assume i fell off the turnip truck yesterday and don't know what the frack i'm doing.:explode:

CICO doesn't mean that the number on a food box is the exact energy that your body extracts CICO means A) establish what your maintenance level is on the basis of those values THEN establish a consistant deficit. If you don't do step A then you can't be suprised when step B doesn't work.

and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.

What I'm hearing is that Calories In - Calories Out would cause you to lose or gain weight.

However, your particular metabolism makes it impossible for you to lose weight while supporting your nutritional needs.

Metabolic condishuns effect like .03% of the population. Not every ****en obese person has one. Their biggest problem is: overeating. Duh. Calories in> out is 100% effective for pretty much everyone. Its just people don't want to stop eating too much. Whatever the reason and there are valid reasons. But that's a different conversation. Its simple math and physics.

(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption...

Keeping in mind that the baseline fat consumption was only 35%, while the baseline carb consumption was over 200g/day. So comparing a (self-reported) 80%+ cut in carbs vs a 15% cut in fat. Adjusted for caloric density, the study asked for nearly 3x the calorie cut from the LC group relative to the LF group.

Curiously, looked at from that perspective, the reported weight losses suggest the LC group was less able to meet the macro requirements than was the LF group.

(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption...

Keeping in mind that the baseline fat consumption was only 35%, while the baseline carb consumption was over 200g/day. So comparing a (self-reported) 80%+ cut in carbs vs a 15% cut in fat. Adjusted for caloric density, the study asked for nearly 3x the calorie cut from the LC group relative to the LF group.

Curiously, looked at from that perspective, the reported weight losses suggest the LC group was less able to meet the macro requirements than was the LF group.

Yes. That's what I was getting at - the low carb group made a more significant change from baseline than the low fat group. It is interesting how the results came out, but I think some of that could be due to the self reporting and a more quantitative measurement for carbs (40g) rather than a percent of intake for fat.

I wish I would have avoided this thread!
First of all, I'm pretty new here, but I have seen a lot of "There's no such thing as a special snowflake. You are not counting right, either your calories in or your calories burnt are wrong." Then, someone brings up a case where a body might use nutrients differently, and they get attitude for bringing it up. It reads like this to me, "there's no such thing as a special snowflake." "But what about A, B, Or C? ". "Stop bringing up special snowflakes!"... "There's no such thing as a special snowflake."

What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way? That's what everyone keeps asking for, proof, examples, etc. My Drs. have me on a low carb diet, for oh no, insulin resistance! However, I don't think that it is the only answer. It is just what works for me and my body. I exercise too. In fact changing my diet has helped me with my migraines which were happening frequently. (3-4 times a week). This has allowed me to start running. So, now, I've been able to add more exercise to my routine. And yes I also count calories, but it's more to make sure I'm eating enough. I don't feel anywhere near as hungry as I used to feel.
So, to answer another question, my one sentence advice would be, "Find a way to lose weight that works for your body's needs".

If you feel better with carbs, eat them. If not, don't. I'm not sure at all why low carb diets seem to anger so many people. I got some rude responses on another thread. It's sort of discouraging when the life choices you make are constantly being denigrated. And then you get insulted to top it off.

What it boils down to,to me, is that losing weight is hard work, no matter what. Does it matter if I lose the weight because my body processes sugar and carbs differently so I cut them down? Or if I cut them down to maintain a caloric deficit? Or if I lose the weight by just maintaining a caloric deficit? One person's experience does not negate another person's.

These forums are for entertainment purposes only.

Don't take it personally.

Some of us actually like genuine exchange of ideas. If you're coming here for entertainment, wow, your pickings must be slim in the entertainment arena.

Oh please, genuine exchange of ideas...you're funny.