what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet?
Replies
-
I would add carbohydrates to my diet, definitely. Low carb diets not only make you lose muscle, but they make you gain fat. Your body literally thinks that it is starving! Your body is going into survival mode where everything is turned into fat. Low carb diets are becoming a thing of the past. The only fuel our Central Nervous System can use comes from Carbohydrates (the liver can also convert fat and protein into glucose, but that's a completely different topic and your body prefers not to) Oxalate (spelling) is a derivative of carbohydrates, and it is what helps us metabolize fat. Without it fat just stays there or becomes ketone bodies and can lead to ketoacidosis. Low carb diets were definitely a trend.
My advice to you is find out what your maintenance calories are, you can generally calculate those based on activity level, age, etc. and the my fitness pal website/app does a really good job of estimating for everyone. If you are active eat 250 calories less than your "maintenance calories" and if you are sedentary eat 500 less calories than your maintenance.
Eat all of your macro-nutrients (Carbs, Fats, and Proteins)! Depending on how active you are I generally recommend 45-65% of your total calories comes from Carbohydrates, 20-35% from fats, and the remaining 10-35% from protein. Also make sure you are getting adequate amounts of fiber and micro-nutrients (vitamins, minerals).
The saying goes "carbohydrates light the fire that burns fat."0 -
Low carb diets build muscle to replace the fat and sometimes the loss shows on the measurements before you see a drop on the scales.
Can you site your source on this?? I have never heard of low carb, or any other "diet" for that matter "build muscle". Building muscle is something down with body weight training ,resistance training, llifting weights and the like. Your body does not just build muscle based on the fuel you provide it.
WIth that said, OP I too tried a low carb diet and then I found MFP and the people I have met on here changed everything for me. You dont have to restrict your carbs, you HAVE to count your calories and eat at a deficiet in order to lose. I generally remain mindful of my carb intake for the day, but ONLY because the foods high in carbs are usually calorie dense as well. Good Luck on your journey!!!
Certainly. Tulane University School of Public Health
By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity.
While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.
“They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.”
The study was financed by the National Institutes of Health and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.
“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet
and the study:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694
Did I miss the part that says how many calories each group was eating?0 -
i have inspected the above post and found that not a word of it contains any factual information. please disregard any and all advice given in that post
I disagree. I have read scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners can stimulate insulin production. The body "reads" them as sugars, even though they are not, and are calorie free.
It is a scientific fact that elevated insulin causes the body to store as fat the foods we are taking in. Any doctor, dietician medical book or even Wikipedia will confirm this.
Therefore, if you drink, say, a Diet Coke with your meal, and the sweeteners are read by the body as sugar, and the pancreas releases a gush of insulin to deal with the (perceived) sugar, then whatever you are eating is going to be stored as fat on your body.
On low carb diets this is especially bad, because you are eating fatty, high-calorie foods and so THAT is what you will store if your body produces insulin. The consequences are not as bad on low calorie diets because your meal is probably only 300 calories instead of 1,000 as it might be on Atkins.
let's look at it your way.
so let's say that i maintain on 3000 calories per day, and i'm cutting on say....2500 per day. i consume some artificial sweetners and now my body produces insulin and stores a portion of my calories into fat storage. okay, now, i *still* need 3000 cals to maintain my weight and I'm 500 short by the end of the day.
we agree that i'm still in a deficit, yes? so where does my body get those 500 calories from in order to not lose weight that's been created by my deficit?
Here's the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine with reference to artificial sweeteners and weight gain:
" Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain. The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven- to eight-year period in the 1980s [18]. When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption. Average BMI gain was +1.01 kg/m2 for control and 1.78 kg/m2 for people in the third quartile for artificially sweetened beverage consumption. The American Cancer Society study conducted in early 1980s included 78,694 women who were highly homogenous with regard to age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and lack of preexisting conditions [19]. At one-year follow-up, 2.7 percent to 7.1 percent more regular artificial sweetener users gained weight compared to non-users matched by initial weight. The difference in the amount gained between the two groups was less than two pounds, albeit statistically significant. Saccharin use was also associated with eight-year weight gain in 31,940 women from the Nurses’ Health Study conducted in the 1970s [20]."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/0 -
Low carb diets build muscle to replace the fat and sometimes the loss shows on the measurements before you see a drop on the scales.
Can you site your source on this?? I have never heard of low carb, or any other "diet" for that matter "build muscle". Building muscle is something down with body weight training ,resistance training, llifting weights and the like. Your body does not just build muscle based on the fuel you provide it.
WIth that said, OP I too tried a low carb diet and then I found MFP and the people I have met on here changed everything for me. You dont have to restrict your carbs, you HAVE to count your calories and eat at a deficiet in order to lose. I generally remain mindful of my carb intake for the day, but ONLY because the foods high in carbs are usually calorie dense as well. Good Luck on your journey!!!
Certainly. Tulane University School of Public Health
By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity.
While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.
“They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.”
The study was financed by the National Institutes of Health and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.
“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet
and the study:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694
Did I miss the part that says how many calories each group was eating?
AS per the now found NY times articleIt included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.
So they didn't assign a number of calories.
Stupid study is stupid0 -
i have inspected the above post and found that not a word of it contains any factual information. please disregard any and all advice given in that post
I disagree. I have read scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners can stimulate insulin production. The body "reads" them as sugars, even though they are not, and are calorie free.
It is a scientific fact that elevated insulin causes the body to store as fat the foods we are taking in. Any doctor, dietician medical book or even Wikipedia will confirm this.
Therefore, if you drink, say, a Diet Coke with your meal, and the sweeteners are read by the body as sugar, and the pancreas releases a gush of insulin to deal with the (perceived) sugar, then whatever you are eating is going to be stored as fat on your body.
On low carb diets this is especially bad, because you are eating fatty, high-calorie foods and so THAT is what you will store if your body produces insulin. The consequences are not as bad on low calorie diets because your meal is probably only 300 calories instead of 1,000 as it might be on Atkins.
This is so very true.
you're only saying that because it fits your little personal view of the world.
Oh look and I did it without belittling anyone else's point of view *gasp*
perhaps, but you've yet to supply any actual facts.
I've read these scientific studies in depth. All 23 of them have you?
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
1.Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, 2003.
Details: 63 individuals were randomized to either a low-fat diet group, or a low-carb diet group. The low-fat group was calorie restricted. This study went on for 12 months.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost more weight, 7.3% of total body weight, compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.5%. The difference was statistically significant at 3 and 6 months, but not 12 months.
Foster, et al. 2003.
Conclusion: There was more weight loss in the low-carb group, significant at 3 and 6 months, but not 12. The low-carb group had greater improvements in blood triglycerides and HDL, but other biomarkers were similar between groups.
2. Samaha FF, et al. A low-carbohydrate as compared with a low-fat diet in severe obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, 2003.
Details: 132 individuals with severe obesity (mean BMI of 43) were randomized to either a low-fat or a low-carb diet. Many of the subjects had metabolic syndrome or type II diabetes. The low-fat dieters were calorie restricted. Study duration was 6 months.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost an average of 5.8 kg (12.8 lbs) while the low-fat group lost only 1.9 kg (4.2 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.
Samaha, et al. 2003.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight (about 3 times as much). There was also a statistically significant difference in several biomarkers:
Triglycerides went down by 38 mg/dL in the LC group, compared to 7 mg/dL in the LF group.
Insulin sensitivity improved on LC, got slightly worse on LF.
Fasting blood glucose levels went down by 26 mg/dL in the LC group, only 5 mg/dL in the LF group.
Insulin levels went down by 27% in the LC group, but increased slightly in the LF group.
Overall, the low-carb diet had significantly more beneficial effects on weight and key biomarkers in this group of severely obese individuals.
3. Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents. The Journal of Pediatrics, 2003.
Details: 30 overweight adolescents were randomized to two groups, a low-carb diet group and a low-fat diet group. This study went on for 12 weeks. Neither group was instructed to restrict calories.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 9.9 kg (21.8 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 4.1 kg (9 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.
Sondike, et al. 2003.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost significantly more (2.3 times as much) weight and had significant decreases in Triglycerides and Non-HDL cholesterol. Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the low-fat group only.
4. Brehm BJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2003.
Details: 53 healthy but obese females were randomized to either a low-fat diet, or a low-carb diet. Low-fat group was calorie restricted. The study went on for 6 months.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost an average og 8.5 kg (18.7 lbs), while the low-fat group lost an average of 3.9 kg (8.6 lbs). The difference was statistically significant at 6 months.
Weight Loss Graph, Low Carb vs Low Fat
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight (2.2 times as much) and had significant reductions in blood triglycerides. HDL improved slightly in both groups.
5. Aude YW, et al. The national cholesterol education program diet vs a diet lower in carbohydrates and higher in protein and monounsaturated fat. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2004.
Details: 60 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb diet high in monounsaturated fat, or a low-fat diet based on the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP).
Both groups were calorie restricted and the study went on for 12 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost an average of 6.2 kg (13.6 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 3.4 kg (7.5 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost 1.8 times as much weight. There were also several changes in biomarkers that are worth noting:
Waist-to-hip ratio is a marker for abdominal fat. This marker improved slightly in the LC group, not in the LF group.
Total cholesterol improved in both groups.
Triglycerides went down by 42 mg/dL in the LC group, compared to 15.3 mg/dL in the LF group.
LDL particle size increased by 4.8 nm and percentage of small, dense LDL decreased by 6.1% in the LC group, while there was no significant difference in the LF group.
Overall, the low-carb group lost more weight and had much greater improvements in several important risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
6. Yancy WS Jr, et al. A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2004.
Details: 120 overweight individuals with elevated blood lipids were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet. The low-fat group was calorie restricted. Study went on for 24 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 9.4 kg (20.7 lbs) of their total body weight, compared to 4.8 kg (10.6 lbs) in the low-fat group.
Yancy, et al. 2004.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight and had greater improvements in blood triglycerides and HDL cholesterol.
7. JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Volek, et al. 2004.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight. The men on the low-carb diet lost three times as much abdominal fat as the men on the low-fat diet.
8. Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
9. Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
10. Daly ME, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine, 2006.
Details: 102 patients with Type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 3 months. The low-fat group was instructed to reduce portion sizes.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 3.55 kg (7.8 lbs), while the low-fat group lost only 0.92 kg (2 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight and had greater improvements in the Total cholesterol/HDL ratio. There was no difference in triglycerides, blood pressure or HbA1c (a marker for blood sugar levels) between groups.
11. McClernon FJ, et al. The effects of a low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet and a low-fat diet on mood, hunger, and other self-reported symptoms. Obesity (Silver Spring), 2007.
Details: 119 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb, ketogenic diet or a calorie restricted low-fat diet for 6 months.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 12.9 kg (28.4 lbs), while the low-fat group lost only 6.7 kg (14.7 lbs).
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost almost twice the weight and experienced less hunger.
12. Gardner CD, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study. The Journal of The American Medical Association, 2007.
Details: 311 overweight/obese premenopausal women were randomized to 4 diets: A low-carb Atkins diet, a low-fat vegetarian Ornish diet, the Zone diet and the LEARN diet. Zone and LEARN were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The Atkins group lost the most weight at 12 months (4.7 kg – 10.3 lbs) compared to Ornish (2.2 kg – 4.9 lbs), Zone (1.6 kg – 3.5 lbs) and LEARN (2.6 kg – 5.7 lbs). However, the difference was not statistically significant at 12 months.
A to Z Study Weight Loss Graph
Conclusion: The Atkins group lost the most weight, although the difference was not statistically significant. The Atkins group had the greatest improvements in blood pressure, triglycerides and HDL. LEARN and Ornish (low-fat) had decreases in LDL at 2 months, but then the effects diminished.
This study was covered in detail here.
13. Halyburton AK, et al. Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007.
Details: 93 overweight/obese individuals were randomized to either a low-carb, high-fat diet or a low-fat, high-carb diet for 8 weeks. Both groups were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.8 kg (17.2 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.
Halyburton, et al. 2007.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight. Both groups had similar improvements in mood, but speed of processing (a measure of cognitive performance) improved further on the low-fat diet.
14. Dyson PA, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet is more effective in reducing body weight than healthy eating in both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Diabetic Medicine, 2007.
Details: 13 diabetic and 13 non-diabetic individuals were randomized to a low-carb diet or a “healthy eating” diet that followed the Diabetes UK recommendations (a calorie restricted, low-fat diet). Study went on for 3 months.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 6.9 kg (15.2 lbs), compared to 2.1 kg (4.6 lbs) in the low-fat group.
Dyson, et al. 2007.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight (about 3 times as much). There was no difference in any other marker between groups.
15. Westman EC, et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutrion & Metabolism (London), 2008.
Details: 84 individuals with obesity and type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-carb, ketogenic diet or a calorie restricted low-glycemic diet. The study went on for 24 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost more weight (11.1 kg – 24.4 lbs) compared to the low-glycemic group (6.9 kg – 15.2 lbs).
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight than the low-glycemic group. There were several other important differences:
Hemoglobin A1c went down by 1.5% in the LC group, compared to 0.5% in the low-glycemic group.
HDL cholesterol increased in the LC group only, by 5.6 mg/dL.
Diabetes medications were either reduced or eliminated in 95.2% of the LC group, compared to 62% in the low-glycemic group.
Many other health markers like blood pressure and triglycerides improved in both groups, but the difference between groups was not statistically significant.
16. Shai I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. New England Journal of Medicine, 2008.
Details: 322 obese individuals were randomized to three diets: a low-carb diet, a calorie restricted low-fat diet and a calorie restricted Mediterranean diet. Study went on for 2 years.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 4.7 kg (10.4 lbs), the low-fat group lost 2.9 kg (6.4 lbs) and the Mediterranean diet group lost 4.4 kg (9.7 lbs).
Shai, et al. 2008.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight than the low-fat group and had greater improvements in HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.
17. Keogh JB, et al. Effects of weight loss from a very-low-carbohydrate diet on endothelial function and markers of cardiovascular disease risk in subjects with abdominal obesity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2008.
Details: 107 individuals with abdominal obesity were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet. Both groups were calorie restricted and the study went on for 8 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.9% of body weight, compared to the low-fat group which lost 6.5% of body weight.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight and there was no difference between groups on Flow Mediated Dilation or any other markers of the function of the endothelium (the lining of blood vessels). There was also no difference in common risk factors between groups.
18. Tay J, et al. Metabolic effects of weight loss on a very-low-carbohydrate diet compared with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet in abdominally obese subjects. Journal of The American College of Cardiology, 2008.
Details: 88 individuals with abdominal obesity were randomized to a very low-carb or a low-fat diet for 24 weeks. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost an average of 11.9 kg (26.2 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 10.1 kg (22.3 lbs). However, the difference was not statistically significant.
Tay, et al. 2008.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight. Triglycerides, HDL, C-Reactive Protein, Insulin, Insulin Sensitivity and Blood Pressure improved in both groups. Total and LDL cholesterol improved in the low-fat group only.
19. Volek JS, et al. Carbohydrate restriction has a more favorable impact on the metabolic syndrome than a low fat diet. Lipids, 2009.
Details: 40 subjects with elevated risk factors for cardiovascular disease were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 12 weeks. Both groups were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 10.1 kg (22.3), while the low-fat group lost 5.2 kg (11.5 lbs).
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost almost twice the amount of weight as the low-fat group, despite eating the same amount of calories.
This study is particularly interesting because it matched calories between groups and measured so-called “advanced” lipid markers. Several things are worth noting:
Triglycerides went down by 107 mg/dL on LC, but 36 mg/dL on the LF diet.
HDL cholesterol increased by 4 mg/dL on LC, but went down by 1 mg/dL on LF.
Apolipoprotein B went down by 11 points on LC, but only 2 points on LF.
LDL size increased on LC, but stayed the same on LF.
On the LC diet, the LDL particles partly shifted from small to large (good), while they partly shifted from large to small on LF (bad).
20. Brinkworth GD, et al. Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 months. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2009.
Details: 118 individuals with abdominal obesity were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 1 year. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 14.5 kg (32 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 11.5 kg (25.3 lbs) but the difference was not statistically significant.
Brinkworth, et al. 2009.
Conclusion: The low-carb group had greater decreases in triglycerides and greater increases in both HDL and LDL cholesterol, compared to the low-fat group.
21. Hernandez, et al. Lack of suppression of circulating free fatty acids and hypercholesterolemia during weight loss on a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010.
Details: 32 obese adults were randomized to a low-carb or a calorie restricted, low-fat diet for 6 weeks.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 6.2 kg (13.7 lbs) while the low-fat group lost 6.0 kg (13.2 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb group had greater decreases in triglycerides (43.6 mg/dL) than the low-fat group (26.9 mg/dL). Both LDL and HDL decreased in the low-fat group only.
22. Krebs NF, et al. Efficacy and safety of a high protein, low carbohydrate diet for weight loss in severely obese adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, 2010.
Details: 46 individuals were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 36 weeks. Low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost more weight and had greater decreases in BMI than the low-fat group.
Krebs, et al. 2010.
Conclusion: The low-carb group had greater reductions in BMI. Various biomarkers improved in both groups, but there was no significant difference between groups.
23. Guldbrand, et al. In type 2 diabetes, randomization to advice to follow a low-carbohydrate diet transiently improves glycaemic control compared with advice to follow a low-fat diet producing a similar weight loss. Diabetologia, 2012.
Details: 61 individuals with type 2 diabetes were randomized to a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 2 years. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 3.1 kg (6.8 lbs), while the low-fat group lost 3.6 kg (7.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: There was no difference in weight loss or common risk factors between groups. There was significant improvement in glycemic control at 6 months for the low-carb group, but compliance was poor and the effects diminished at 24 months as individuals had increased their carb intake.
Weight Loss
Here is a graph that shows the difference in weight loss between studies. 21 of 23 studies reported weight loss numbers:
Weight Loss on Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets, Smaller
The majority of studies achieved statistically significant differences in weight loss (always in favor of low-carb). There are several other factors that are worth noting:
The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference.
In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted.
When both groups restricted calories, the low-carb dieters still lost more weight (7, 13, 19), although it was not always significant (8, 18, 20).
There was only one study where the low-fat group lost more weight (23) although the difference was small (0.5 kg – 1.1 lb) and not statistically significant.
In several of the studies, weight loss was greatest in the beginning. Then people start regaining the weight over time as they abandon the diet.
When the researchers looked at abdominal fat (the unhealthy visceral fat) directly, low-carb diets had a clear advantage (5, 7, 19).
LDL Cholesterol
Despite the concerns expressed by many people, low-carb diets generally do not raise Total and LDL cholesterol levels on average.
Low-fat diets do lower Total and LDL cholesterol, but it is usually only temporary. After 6 to 12 months, the difference is not statistically significant.
There have been some anecdotal reports by doctors who treat patients with low-carb diets, that they can lead to increases in LDL cholesterol and some advanced lipid markers for a small percentage of individuals.
However, none of the studies above noted such adverse effects. The few studies that looked at advanced lipid markers (5, 19) only showed improvements.
HDL Cholesterol
One of the best ways to raise HDL cholesterol levels is to eat more fat. For this reason, it is not surprising to see that low-carb diets (higher in fat) raise HDL significantly more than low-fat diets.
Having higher HDL levels is correlated with improved metabolic health and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. Having low HDL levels is one of the key symptoms of the metabolic syndrome.
18 of the 23 studies reported changes in HDL cholesterol levels:
HDL Cholesterol on Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets, Smaller
You can see that low-carb diets generally raise HDL levels, while they don’t change as much on low-fat diets and in some cases go down.
Triglycerides
Triglycerides are an important cardiovascular risk factor and another key symptom of the metabolic syndrome.
The best way to reduce triglycerides is to eat less carbohydrates, especially sugar.
19 of 23 studies reported changes in blood triglyceride levels:
Triglycerides on Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets, Smaller
It is clear that both low-carb and low-fat diets lead to reductions in triglycerides, but the effect is much stronger in the low-carb groups.
Blood Sugar, Insulin Levels and Type II Diabetes
In non-diabetics, blood sugar and insulin levels improved on both low-carb and low-fat diets and the difference between groups was usually small.
3 studies compared low-carb and low-fat diets in Type 2 diabetic patients.
Only one of those studies had good compliance and managed to reduce carbohydrates sufficiently. This lead various improvements and a drastic reduction in HbA1c, a marker for blood sugar levels (15).
In this study, over 90% of the individuals in the low-carb group managed to reduce or eliminate their diabetes medications.
However, the difference was small or nonexistent in the other two studies, because compliance was poor and the individuals ended up eating carbs at about 30% of calories (10, 23).
Blood Pressure
When measured, blood pressure tended to decrease on both low-carb and low-fat diets.
How Many People Made it to The End?
A common problem in weight loss studies is that many people abandon the diet and drop out of the studies before they are completed.
I did an analysis of the percentage of people who made it to the end of the study in each group. 19 of the 23 studies reported this number:
Compliance graph, smaller
The average percentage of people who made it to the end of the studies were:
Average for the low-carb groups: 79,51%
Average for the low-fat groups: 77,72%
Not a major difference, but it seems clear from these studies that low-carb diets are at the very least NOT harder to stick to than other diets.
The reason may be that low-carb diets appear to reduce hunger (9, 11) and participants are allowed to eat until fullness.
This is an important point, because low-fat diets are usually calorie restricted and require people to weigh their food and count calories.
Individuals also lose more weight, faster, on low-carb. This may improve motivation to continue on the diet.0 -
i have inspected the above post and found that not a word of it contains any factual information. please disregard any and all advice given in that post
I disagree. I have read scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners can stimulate insulin production. The body "reads" them as sugars, even though they are not, and are calorie free.
It is a scientific fact that elevated insulin causes the body to store as fat the foods we are taking in. Any doctor, dietician medical book or even Wikipedia will confirm this.
Therefore, if you drink, say, a Diet Coke with your meal, and the sweeteners are read by the body as sugar, and the pancreas releases a gush of insulin to deal with the (perceived) sugar, then whatever you are eating is going to be stored as fat on your body.
On low carb diets this is especially bad, because you are eating fatty, high-calorie foods and so THAT is what you will store if your body produces insulin. The consequences are not as bad on low calorie diets because your meal is probably only 300 calories instead of 1,000 as it might be on Atkins.
let's look at it your way.
so let's say that i maintain on 3000 calories per day, and i'm cutting on say....2500 per day. i consume some artificial sweetners and now my body produces insulin and stores a portion of my calories into fat storage. okay, now, i *still* need 3000 cals to maintain my weight and I'm 500 short by the end of the day.
we agree that i'm still in a deficit, yes? so where does my body get those 500 calories from in order to not lose weight that's been created by my deficit?
Here's the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine with reference to artificial sweeteners and weight gain:
" Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain. The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven- to eight-year period in the 1980s [18]. When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption. Average BMI gain was +1.01 kg/m2 for control and 1.78 kg/m2 for people in the third quartile for artificially sweetened beverage consumption. The American Cancer Society study conducted in early 1980s included 78,694 women who were highly homogenous with regard to age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and lack of preexisting conditions [19]. At one-year follow-up, 2.7 percent to 7.1 percent more regular artificial sweetener users gained weight compared to non-users matched by initial weight. The difference in the amount gained between the two groups was less than two pounds, albeit statistically significant. Saccharin use was also associated with eight-year weight gain in 31,940 women from the Nurses’ Health Study conducted in the 1970s [20]."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
That doesn't say artificial sweetener cause the weight gain
correlation =/= causation
:noway:0 -
If one is lowering carbs but not worrying about calories, then I'd suggest worrying about calories. Low carb is sometimes medically necessary, but if one is choosing it solely for weight loss, then it's just another method to lower calories. Calories is most important for weight loss.
Regardless of carbs, if one is eating few enough calories that they feel they should be losing weight, then I'd suggest seeing a physician. There are medical conditions that can make losing weight more difficult and they should be checked for these.
0 -
Low carb diets build muscle to replace the fat and sometimes the loss shows on the measurements before you see a drop on the scales.
Can you site your source on this?? I have never heard of low carb, or any other "diet" for that matter "build muscle". Building muscle is something down with body weight training ,resistance training, llifting weights and the like. Your body does not just build muscle based on the fuel you provide it.
WIth that said, OP I too tried a low carb diet and then I found MFP and the people I have met on here changed everything for me. You dont have to restrict your carbs, you HAVE to count your calories and eat at a deficiet in order to lose. I generally remain mindful of my carb intake for the day, but ONLY because the foods high in carbs are usually calorie dense as well. Good Luck on your journey!!!
Certainly. Tulane University School of Public Health
By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity.
While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.
“They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.”
The study was financed by the National Institutes of Health and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.
“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet
and the study:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694
The NY times link doesn't take me to anything :ohwell:
However
A flawed self reported study.
Sorry try again.
Flawed in what way? It seemed to be peer reviewed.
But, the results don't say that a low carb diet built muscle. It says that the few (there were only 60 participants in the study) that ate low fat lost more muscle. The results seem to suggest "Don't eat low fat" more than "Do eat low carb".0 -
Low carb diets build muscle to replace the fat and sometimes the loss shows on the measurements before you see a drop on the scales.
Can you site your source on this?? I have never heard of low carb, or any other "diet" for that matter "build muscle". Building muscle is something down with body weight training ,resistance training, llifting weights and the like. Your body does not just build muscle based on the fuel you provide it.
WIth that said, OP I too tried a low carb diet and then I found MFP and the people I have met on here changed everything for me. You dont have to restrict your carbs, you HAVE to count your calories and eat at a deficiet in order to lose. I generally remain mindful of my carb intake for the day, but ONLY because the foods high in carbs are usually calorie dense as well. Good Luck on your journey!!!
Certainly. Tulane University School of Public Health
By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity.
While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.
“They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.”
The study was financed by the National Institutes of Health and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.
“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet
and the study:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694
Did I miss the part that says how many calories each group was eating?
AS per the now found NY times articleIt included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.
So they didn't assign a number of calories.
Stupid study is stupid
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
also
Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X0 -
OP, low carb works great.
If you count your calories, weigh and measure absolutely everything you eat, account for absolutely everything you eat, and eat less than your TDEE.
No matter what, it is always 100% of the time going to come down to the law of thermodynamics. You lose weight when you eat less than you burn.
The only thing low carb will do is help you shed a little water weight a little quicker. That is it. And that's really what all those fancy studies come down to in the end. You can lose a little more weight eating low carb, but that extra weight isn't really fat. It's water.
No magic.
No voodoo.
No funny science of any sort.
Now go get a food scale and start tracking your calories.0 -
Walls of text do not prove your point.
There is nothing wrong with a low carb diet if that is what you like - but it is not necessary for weight loss - less calories are.
Your facts about sweeteners, muscle gain etc are unsupported.
Most of the studies are flawed as they only assign calories amounts to one group or neither, are based on people with medical conditions, are self reported etc etc etc.0 -
Eliminate artificial sweeteners and focus on lean meats and veggies and unprocessed foods at meals. You know those foods that say they are low carb and low calorie but still have 20 ingredients you cant identify? Yea those are the ones that hold you back. When I felt myself plateau on low carb diets it was a result of eating too many processed foods with artificial sweeteners a going off the deep end with foods that were unhealthy.
Drink lots of water, eat clean and you'll bust through that plateau.
Also track your body measurements. Low carb diets build muscle to replace the fat and sometimes the loss shows on the measurements before you see a drop on the scales.
This is actually correct but worded in a way that you all don't understand it. By eating low carb your body burns the fat that you already have stored in your body for energy instead of using the immediate energy you just gave it from the carbs. Therefore, by eating a low-carb diet and doing strength training too you lose the fat, build muscle, trim down, lose inches but may not see a difference on the scale.0 -
i have inspected the above post and found that not a word of it contains any factual information. please disregard any and all advice given in that post
I disagree. I have read scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners can stimulate insulin production. The body "reads" them as sugars, even though they are not, and are calorie free.
It is a scientific fact that elevated insulin causes the body to store as fat the foods we are taking in. Any doctor, dietician medical book or even Wikipedia will confirm this.
Therefore, if you drink, say, a Diet Coke with your meal, and the sweeteners are read by the body as sugar, and the pancreas releases a gush of insulin to deal with the (perceived) sugar, then whatever you are eating is going to be stored as fat on your body.
On low carb diets this is especially bad, because you are eating fatty, high-calorie foods and so THAT is what you will store if your body produces insulin. The consequences are not as bad on low calorie diets because your meal is probably only 300 calories instead of 1,000 as it might be on Atkins.
let's look at it your way.
so let's say that i maintain on 3000 calories per day, and i'm cutting on say....2500 per day. i consume some artificial sweetners and now my body produces insulin and stores a portion of my calories into fat storage. okay, now, i *still* need 3000 cals to maintain my weight and I'm 500 short by the end of the day.
we agree that i'm still in a deficit, yes? so where does my body get those 500 calories from in order to not lose weight that's been created by my deficit?
Here's the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine with reference to artificial sweeteners and weight gain:
" Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain. The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven- to eight-year period in the 1980s [18]. When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption. Average BMI gain was +1.01 kg/m2 for control and 1.78 kg/m2 for people in the third quartile for artificially sweetened beverage consumption. The American Cancer Society study conducted in early 1980s included 78,694 women who were highly homogenous with regard to age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and lack of preexisting conditions [19]. At one-year follow-up, 2.7 percent to 7.1 percent more regular artificial sweetener users gained weight compared to non-users matched by initial weight. The difference in the amount gained between the two groups was less than two pounds, albeit statistically significant. Saccharin use was also associated with eight-year weight gain in 31,940 women from the Nurses’ Health Study conducted in the 1970s [20]."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
That doesn't say artificial sweetener cause the weight gain
correlation =/= causation
:noway:
I read the article and the conclusions by Yale University professors in a peer reviewed journal. They most definitely did establish that artificial sweeteners cause more weight gain than weight loss over time.
Please take the time to actually read the study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/0 -
i have inspected the above post and found that not a word of it contains any factual information. please disregard any and all advice given in that post
I disagree. I have read scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners can stimulate insulin production. The body "reads" them as sugars, even though they are not, and are calorie free.
It is a scientific fact that elevated insulin causes the body to store as fat the foods we are taking in. Any doctor, dietician medical book or even Wikipedia will confirm this.
Therefore, if you drink, say, a Diet Coke with your meal, and the sweeteners are read by the body as sugar, and the pancreas releases a gush of insulin to deal with the (perceived) sugar, then whatever you are eating is going to be stored as fat on your body.
On low carb diets this is especially bad, because you are eating fatty, high-calorie foods and so THAT is what you will store if your body produces insulin. The consequences are not as bad on low calorie diets because your meal is probably only 300 calories instead of 1,000 as it might be on Atkins.
let's look at it your way.
so let's say that i maintain on 3000 calories per day, and i'm cutting on say....2500 per day. i consume some artificial sweetners and now my body produces insulin and stores a portion of my calories into fat storage. okay, now, i *still* need 3000 cals to maintain my weight and I'm 500 short by the end of the day.
we agree that i'm still in a deficit, yes? so where does my body get those 500 calories from in order to not lose weight that's been created by my deficit?
Here's the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine with reference to artificial sweeteners and weight gain:
" Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain. The San Antonio Heart Study examined 3,682 adults over a seven- to eight-year period in the 1980s [18]. When matched for initial body mass index (BMI), gender, ethnicity, and diet, drinkers of artificially sweetened beverages consistently had higher BMIs at the follow-up, with dose dependence on the amount of consumption. Average BMI gain was +1.01 kg/m2 for control and 1.78 kg/m2 for people in the third quartile for artificially sweetened beverage consumption. The American Cancer Society study conducted in early 1980s included 78,694 women who were highly homogenous with regard to age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and lack of preexisting conditions [19]. At one-year follow-up, 2.7 percent to 7.1 percent more regular artificial sweetener users gained weight compared to non-users matched by initial weight. The difference in the amount gained between the two groups was less than two pounds, albeit statistically significant. Saccharin use was also associated with eight-year weight gain in 31,940 women from the Nurses’ Health Study conducted in the 1970s [20]."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/
Again... How many calories were consumed?0 -
Eliminate artificial sweeteners and focus on lean meats and veggies and unprocessed foods at meals. You know those foods that say they are low carb and low calorie but still have 20 ingredients you cant identify? Yea those are the ones that hold you back. When I felt myself plateau on low carb diets it was a result of eating too many processed foods with artificial sweeteners a going off the deep end with foods that were unhealthy.
Drink lots of water, eat clean and you'll bust through that plateau.
Also track your body measurements. Low carb diets build muscle to replace the fat and sometimes the loss shows on the measurements before you see a drop on the scales.
This is actually correct but worded in a way that you all don't understand it. By eating low carb your body burns the fat that you already have stored in your body for energy instead of using the immediate energy you just gave it from the carbs. Therefore, by eating a low-carb diet and doing strength training too you lose the fat, build muscle, trim down, lose inches but may not see a difference on the scale.
No, no its not correct.
It doesn't build muscle. Muscle is built in a calorie SURPLUS.0 -
Low carb diets build muscle to replace the fat and sometimes the loss shows on the measurements before you see a drop on the scales.
Can you site your source on this?? I have never heard of low carb, or any other "diet" for that matter "build muscle". Building muscle is something down with body weight training ,resistance training, llifting weights and the like. Your body does not just build muscle based on the fuel you provide it.
WIth that said, OP I too tried a low carb diet and then I found MFP and the people I have met on here changed everything for me. You dont have to restrict your carbs, you HAVE to count your calories and eat at a deficiet in order to lose. I generally remain mindful of my carb intake for the day, but ONLY because the foods high in carbs are usually calorie dense as well. Good Luck on your journey!!!
Certainly. Tulane University School of Public Health
By the end of the yearlong trial, people in the low-carbohydrate group had lost about eight pounds more on average than those in the low-fat group. They had significantly greater reductions in body fat than the low-fat group, and improvements in lean muscle mass — even though neither group changed their levels of physical activity.
While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.
“They actually lost lean muscle mass, which is a bad thing,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “Your balance of lean mass versus fat mass is much more important than weight. And that’s a very important finding that shows why the low-carb, high-fat group did so metabolically well.”
The study was financed by the National Institutes of Health and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.
“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet
and the study:
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694
Did I miss the part that says how many calories each group was eating?
AS per the now found NY times articleIt included a racially diverse group of 150 men and women — a rarity in clinical nutrition studies — who were assigned to follow diets for one year that limited either the amount of carbs or fat that they could eat, but not overall calories.
So they didn't assign a number of calories.
Stupid study is stupid
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
also
Meckling KA, et al. Comparison of a low-fat diet to a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, body composition, and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in free-living, overweight men and women. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2004.
Details: 40 overweight individuals were randomized to a low-carb and a low-fat diet for 10 weeks. The calories were matched between groups.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost 7.0 kg (15.4 lbs) and the low-fat group lost 6.8 kg (14.9 lbs). The difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Both groups lost a similar amount of weight.
A few other notable differences in biomarkers:
Blood pressure decreased in both groups, both systolic and diastolic.
Total and LDL cholesterol decreased in the LF group only.
Triglycerides decreased in both groups.
HDL cholesterol went up in the LC group, but decreased in the LF group.
Blood sugar went down in both groups, but only the LC group had decreases in insulin levels, indicating improved insulin sensitivity.
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2003-031606
Nickols-Richardson SM, et al. Perceived hunger is lower and weight loss is greater in overweight premenopausal women consuming a low-carbohydrate/high-protein vs high-carbohydrate/low-fat diet. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 2005.
Details: 28 overweight premenopausal women consumed either a low-carb or a low-fat diet for 6 weeks. The low-fat group was calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The women in the low-carb group lost 6.4 kg (14.1 lbs) compared to the low-fat group, which lost 4.2 kg (9.3 lbs). The results were statistically significant.
Conclusion: The low-carb diet caused significantly more weight loss and reduced hunger compared to the low-fat diet.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X
Sigh
In short studies water weight can account for the extra weight lossed by the LC groups - not to mention the middle study bolded that shows no difference in weight loss.0 -
Diet, shmiet. Youre either eating better or you are not. Too bad this thread got highjacked - is the OP still reading?
Calorie deficit = weight comes off. To ensure deficit, monitor your portion size using a food scale if you aren't already. I had a hard time adopting that at first, being the only person in a household of 7 that weighs everything- how awkward, amirite?
Sometimes, though, there is a plateau despite doing everything right. All you can do is hunker down, keep doing whatcher doing and the body will realise you are serious about this weight loss nonsense and let the weight come off again. For some it takes a day or 3, others it can take a week or more, and by more I mean month +
If you are positive you are monitoring your food as accurately as possible, positive you are burning off the calories as close to an accurate estimate as you can get, and operating at a calorie deficit that isn't extreme you will experience loss. Gradual or dramatic, loss all the same.0 -
Without more information it is hard to say. I would venture a guess that you may have gotten so focus on the carb part of the equation; that you may be overlooking the culprit.0
-
Walls of text do not prove your point.
There is nothing wrong with a low carb diet if that is what you like - but it is not necessary for weight loss - less calories are.
Your facts about sweeteners, muscle gain etc are unsupported.
Most of the studies are flawed as they only assign calories amounts to one group or neither, are based on people with medical conditions, are self reported etc etc etc.
Its not a wall of text. Its scientific proof. Take the time to read it. You can't call a clinical scientific study in a peer reviewed journal "flawed" without reading it sorry.
If 23 different scientific studies conducted by major universities and health organizations around the world all come up with the same conclusions and publish their results in peer reviewed journals (and go through stringent criticism by experts during the process) ... sorry I believe them. 1 might be a fluke. But 23? I don't think so.0 -
Walls of text do not prove your point.
There is nothing wrong with a low carb diet if that is what you like - but it is not necessary for weight loss - less calories are.
Your facts about sweeteners, muscle gain etc are unsupported.
Most of the studies are flawed as they only assign calories amounts to one group or neither, are based on people with medical conditions, are self reported etc etc etc.
Its not a wall of text. Its scientific proof. Take the time to read it. You can't call a clinical scientific study in a peer reviewed journal "flawed" without reading it sorry.
If 23 different scientific studies conducted by major universities and health organizations around the world all come up with the same conclusions and publish their results in peer reviewed journals (and go through stringent criticism by experts during the process) ... sorry I believe them. 1 might be a fluke. But 23? I don't think so.
I'm going through them one by one most are self reported with no calorie goals in place.
I bet when I'm finished I'll still be calling them flawed.0 -
OP, low carb works great.
If you count your calories, weigh and measure absolutely everything you eat, account for absolutely everything you eat, and eat less than your TDEE.
No matter what, it is always 100% of the time going to come down to the law of thermodynamics. You lose weight when you eat less than you burn.
The only thing low carb will do is help you shed a little water weight a little quicker. That is it. And that's really what all those fancy studies come down to in the end. You can lose a little more weight eating low carb, but that extra weight isn't really fat. It's water.
No magic.
No voodoo.
No funny science of any sort.
Now go get a food scale and start tracking your calories.
Best advice so far.0 -
@Independant24 - I read the article from the NY times which mentioned what you quoted, but then I went to the Tulane website to read about the study from the source (it was an article written by someone from Tulane, dated 9/2/2014) and have been unable to find any mention of lean muscle gain and/or loss. On that article I followed the link for the "study" which takes me to another Tulane article dated 10/28/2008 which also makes no mention. Rather it discusses hypertension and renal function.
I also tried to view the study from the Annals of Internal Medicine, and witht eh brief summary that is open to the public also found no mention of lean muscle variations.
So I guess I'm going to stick with my intial statement that dieting doesn't build lean muscle weight bearing exercises do.0 -
I would keep an eye on your calorie intake for a little while, and see if its fit for purpose. I don't know if there's any magic to doing low carb, but from almost three month of eating low carb (and losing a nice amount of excess weight), I do know my low carb diet helps me stick to my daily caloric deficit relatively easily, and that's where the real magic is for me. There are however many low carb foods that people find easy to eat a lot of, and you may find you're in a caloric surplus. Tracking your caloric intake for a couple days/ week, should let you know pretty quickly if thats the case, so I would say do that, and re-assess then.0
-
Walls of text do not prove your point.
There is nothing wrong with a low carb diet if that is what you like - but it is not necessary for weight loss - less calories are.
Your facts about sweeteners, muscle gain etc are unsupported.
Most of the studies are flawed as they only assign calories amounts to one group or neither, are based on people with medical conditions, are self reported etc etc etc.
Its not a wall of text. Its scientific proof. Take the time to read it. You can't call a clinical scientific study in a peer reviewed journal "flawed" without reading it sorry.
If 23 different scientific studies conducted by major universities and health organizations around the world all come up with the same conclusions and publish their results in peer reviewed journals (and go through stringent criticism by experts during the process) ... sorry I believe them. 1 might be a fluke. But 23? I don't think so.
Proof of what?
If they did lose weight on low carb diets it was still because a calorie deficit was present. The calorie deficit may not have been a focus in any of the studies but when someone eats fewer carbs a side effect is still going to always be fewer calories, which is the real reason weight was lost.0 -
i have inspected the above post and found that not a word of it contains any factual information. please disregard any and all advice given in that post
I disagree. I have read scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners can stimulate insulin production. The body "reads" them as sugars, even though they are not, and are calorie free.
It is a scientific fact that elevated insulin causes the body to store as fat the foods we are taking in. Any doctor, dietician medical book or even Wikipedia will confirm this.
Therefore, if you drink, say, a Diet Coke with your meal, and the sweeteners are read by the body as sugar, and the pancreas releases a gush of insulin to deal with the (perceived) sugar, then whatever you are eating is going to be stored as fat on your body.
On low carb diets this is especially bad, because you are eating fatty, high-calorie foods and so THAT is what you will store if your body produces insulin. The consequences are not as bad on low calorie diets because your meal is probably only 300 calories instead of 1,000 as it might be on Atkins.
Hmm, then how have I lost 25 pounds since I switched from regular soda to diet?
OP, just being low carb doesn't mean anything if you aren't eating in a calorie deficit.
This^^^ Low Carb doesn't make you lose weight. Being in a calorie deficit does. THAT'S what's causing me to lose weight... The low carbing is just because of how high counts of carbs make me feel. I feel better and am more satiated because I've compensated with a higher fat count and protein count.0 -
Walls of text do not prove your point.
There is nothing wrong with a low carb diet if that is what you like - but it is not necessary for weight loss - less calories are.
Your facts about sweeteners, muscle gain etc are unsupported.
Most of the studies are flawed as they only assign calories amounts to one group or neither, are based on people with medical conditions, are self reported etc etc etc.
Its not a wall of text. Its scientific proof. Take the time to read it. You can't call a clinical scientific study in a peer reviewed journal "flawed" without reading it sorry.
If 23 different scientific studies conducted by major universities and health organizations around the world all come up with the same conclusions and publish their results in peer reviewed journals (and go through stringent criticism by experts during the process) ... sorry I believe them. 1 might be a fluke. But 23? I don't think so.
I'm going through them one by one most are self reported with no calorie goals in place.
I bet when I'm finished I'll still be calling them flawed.
You can believe what you want. I have my own beliefs and science to back it up. Calling all 23 peer reviewed journal articles and clinical studies "flawed" is crazy I'm sorry.
Moreover through trial and error I also know what works best for my body.0 -
Hello friends please share your suggestions here what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet ?
Waiting for the suggestions
Eat less.0 -
My guess is you're eating too many calories. Eat less.Hello friends please share your suggestions here what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet ?
Waiting for the suggestions0 -
My guess is you're eating too many calories. Eat less.Hello friends please share your suggestions here what to do if one is not losing weight on a low carb diet ?
Waiting for the suggestions
crazy talk. low carb is magic. have you not seen the links to studies?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions