Is cutting carbs an effective weight loss strategy?

Yes, eating higher protein & lower carbs leads to more weight loss.
This blog post has quotes from & links to the scientific studies supporting that approach.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MKEgal/view/2014-08-09-high-protein-diet-685553
Try 45% carbs, 20% fat, 35% protein to stay within the healthy macro ranges.

For the people who are saying "you should only eat 100g of carbs per day" (or whatever number you're throwing out), you're completely disregarding that people are not exactly the same! If for your weight eating 100g of carbs per day puts your carb intake at 45 - 65% of your calorie intake, then it's healthy for you. For someone else, that might be too low, below the healthy range.

earlnabby wrote:

I lowered my carbs to 35% of my calorie target so technically I am eating reduced carb, not low carb.

That is below the healthy range. Is your doctor on board with that?

Here's a table showing the recommended daily intake for macronutrients.
http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/C5CD2DD7840544979A549EC47E56A02B.ashx
page 1, carbs, 45 - 65% of calories (4 cal per gram)
page 2, fat, 20 - 35% of calories (9 cal per gram)
page 4, protein, 10 - 35% of calories (4 cal per gram)

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

joolsmd wrote: »

I'm not reducing carbs per se, I'm reducing simple carbs like wheat, sugar, etc. I'm not a fan of bread anyway, or potatoes, so its not a stretch for me. Happy to eat complex carbs like oatmeal, bran, wholemeal pasta, basmati rice and so on, but I've been low carb for so long I'm not sure I'd enjoy them that much. I still eat loads of veg and enjoy enough fruit so I am happy to get my carbs that way.

For whatever it's worth: your breakdown of complex versus simple carbs isn't quite accurate.

fair enough. I just know what I liek and don't like, and if I don't like something I don't eat it. if that then means my carbs are lower than average then no problem. I don't get too upset if I exceed my set level on here either.

MKEgal wrote: »

earlnabby wrote:

I lowered my carbs to 35% of my calorie target so technically I am eating reduced carb, not low carb.

That is below the healthy range. Is your doctor on board with that?

Yes she is. I am T2D and she gave me a maximum of 180 g of carbs to eat. 35% is currently 160 g so I have a little wiggle room when I eat back some exercise calories, as long as I rarely go over 180g.

ETA: 10 months after diagnosis, I am off the diabetes drugs and now control it by diet and exercise only. 35% seems to be my sweet spot for health and satiety. I feel good and have enough energy for my daily life, including 2 hour workouts 3 times a week (swimming laps plus a water aerobics class)

ETA2: my percentage may go up a little as my weight continues to go down since I am aiming for a target number, not exactly a target %. We'll get to that if necessary but for now, if it ain't broke . . .

I've basically been trying to avoid the white carbs in favor of whole grain. This is not easy at our house where my husband the cook makes white pasta and white rice a lot. We don't like whole wheat pasta so I try to avoid pasta meals. I do make brown rice for myself.

I find it challenging when eating out to find places that serve "brown" carbs. So usually I just try to limit how much of the white carbs I'm eating.

nuttynanners wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

nuttynanners wrote: »

I get so sick of hearing people say "You'd do just as well eating carbs but maintaining a daily deficit" or "I don't restrict any foods! Everything in moderation!", as if to imply I am depriving myself.

My carb goal is currently 105 carbs per day. When I exercise, it's higher. It works for me. I'm not cutting carbs completely. In my diet, I strive to eat healthy fats and protein.

I do eat the occasional pizza or burger or tamale or dessert, so I'm not the total masochist people make me out to be, and neither is OP...

Who says that to you? I eat around that amount (more so earlier in the process) and no one really even notices, since it's not like I have to be more restrictive than anyone else watching their diet.

I don't consider myself low carb at that level. I do cut carbs, of course, to get there, because--as mentioned above--for me it's the easiest way (least restrictive) to cut calories. I increased protein and also cut overall fat grams, I'm sure (no clue what my former percentages were), but have zero desire for any kind of low fat plan.

Just the other day IRL I was saying I needed to stay away from the Horseradish Mashed Potatoes at work (I had a tiny taste, they were insanely delicious and tempting), and a coworker started going on about how he doesn't deprive himself of anything his body wants. We work at a local health food store, so I'm always getting an earful of what's "best".

Interesting. My sister used to work at a health food store, and weird diets were the norm, so no one would have batted an eye (although I doubt mashed potatoes would have been on offer). Even at my more staid corporate-like job, in these parts, people can be assumed to be on some diet or another or just to have some personal way of eating that excludes something (gluten being the most popular these days), so people don't care. I removed bread from sandwiches at a work lunch just last week and felt a little silly doing it, but no one even seemed to notice.

I see it on the forums here too. Some people have a pretty narrow sense of what "moderation" really is.

This gets to the "disconnect" that mamapeach mentioned, which I agree with her about. There are millions of posts of people claiming that sugar is "the devil" because they happen to eat 10 cookies a day and no vegetables, and deciding that the correct way to respond to this is to cut out all sugar (even though they often seem not to know what foods contain it or to be overly worried about bananas as "nature's cupcake" or some such). If people just said: "jeez, my calories are too high and when I look at my diet I see that I'm getting too many calories from cookies and, for that matter (since there's plenty of fat in cookies), various high carb foods, I think I will be more satisfied and feel better if I reduce the proportion of those foods and focus more on protein and fat and nutrient dense items like fruits and veggies (despite them being carbs," I am sure no one would bat an eye.

Indeed, those who like to talk about macros generally will say that carbs is a personal preference thing once you get adequate protein and fat for you.

I tend to agree that there's a negative attitude toward low carbing among some here, whereas I personally think low carbing works well for certain people (not me), but what you are talking about doesn't strike me as low carbing so I'm not sure why you are seeing all that as criticism of what you are doing.

MKEgal wrote: »

For the people who are saying "you should only eat 100g of carbs per day" (or whatever number you're throwing out), you're completely disregarding that people are not exactly the same!

I don't believe anyone here has said that.

If for your weight eating 100g of carbs per day puts your carb intake at 45 - 65% of your calorie intake, then it's healthy for you. For someone else, that might be too low, below the healthy range.

100 g of carbs is 400 calories, so its about 33% for someone on a 1200 calorie diet. I HOPE no one is eating so low that it's 45-65%.

I'm not at all convinced that eating less than 45% of calories from carbs is unhealthy, though, and I do a lot of cardio, specifically distance running and biking. I did jack carbs up to about 40% when at my most active, but I haven't found it makes a huge difference. (I am obviously not an elite athlete.)

I do think that the range of carbs that works best varies person to person, and thus that people shouldn't assume that what works for them will work for others.

susie7172 wrote: »

No doubt you'll lose weight. But, you'll only maintain it if you stay low carb.

CICO--he'll maintain if he eats at his TDEE.

Also, cutting carbs doesn't mean one cuts out fruits and veggies. (I don't think the OP said he was super low carb, although I should go back and check.)

lemurcat12 wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

BTW, anything under 120g is considered to be a low-carb diet...
So a great many consider 100g to be a low-carb diet.
The SAD is generally 300g and up.
So those doing 100g are low-carb,

I wouldn't think there was a hard and fast definition, but I think of "low carb" as anything that aims at ketosis or really means that you have to cut out foods or limit even foods like fruits and veggies. I also think it's significant that I was able to drop to 100 grams without feeling any kind of loss of energy even initially or "low carb flu." I expect this is individual, though, but if I hadn't been logging I would have had no clue I was eating even that low--it just seemed like a common sense way for me to cut back calories.

With respect to the SAD, I kind of think the comparison is a little distorted, because the average person eating the SAD also eats far more calories. According to wiki, the SAD is 50% carbs (just like MFP's standard goal!), and at 1200 calories (shockingly, the first calorie recommendation I had from MFP) that would have meant 150 carbs. So my doing 100 (and 1250 calories) was hardly as significant a difference, and didn't mean that I was "cutting out a macro," obviously, but focusing on the foods I preferred and found more satiating. Now I eat 1600 calories (or a bit more), so 50% would be 200, and I aim for 140 and am usually below. Eh, no big difference, it's based on personal preference.

(And I respect that your eating choices are too, and work for you.)

Ok. I'll concede that the SAD figure is highly dependent upon calorie level. It does vary widely. I just know what the carb count of some of the people in my life looks like. What mine used to look like. I wouldn't have called that "balanced macros" by any stretch of the imagination. A lot of people here on MFP who are losing weight will have lower numbers by default because of a calorie deficit. But for many of those who choose lower carb diets, the difference between their old carb consumption and new level of carb consumption might be a large spread. And for them, it probably is a huge improvement in macro distribution. But yes, highly individual.

Right. There is no hard and fast definition of low-carb. Many are in agreement on what "isn't" low-carb, fewer agree on what "is." It means different things to different people. However, all ketogenic diets are low-carb, but not all low-carb diets are ketogenic, as many people I have spoken with keep 75-100g levels, give no figs about ketosis, and consider themselves low-carb. But it is, IMO, entirely arbitrary. I just thought it would be interesting to point out that a lot of low-carbers would call 100g a low-carb diet, while some who deliberately eats at that particular level, deny they are eating "low-carb". It's funny to me. But then again, even some low-carbers even argue about the threshold at which people can call themselves "low-carb." People will inevitable disagree about anything.

I just don't understand the magnitude of the distinctions and the connotational differences (addressing the forum reactions in general), between those who just happen to eat less carbs accidentally while reducing calories, those who drop high carb foods because they don't like them or don't care about them, and those who are purposely following a "low-carb diet". It's a flimsy line to me, while others see it as a bigger deal. Why does it matter so much? It all just looks like a comparison to me between people who just happen to lower their carbs when creating calorie deficit and people who choose to lower their carbs to create calorie deficit. And that isn't a huge enough difference to care about, IMO. Low-carb, if done correctly, IS portion control and calorie deficit. Does it matter if people reduce carbs or not? Maybe I don't get it because I just believe too firmly that it doesn't matter which path you pick, as long as you stay on one long-term, and get there. Which version of "sustainability" people find works for them doesn't matter.

baconslave wrote: »

I just don't understand the magnitude of the distinctions and the connotational differences (addressing the forum reactions in general), between those who just happen to eat less carbs accidentally while reducing calories, those who drop high carb foods because they don't like them or don't care about them, and those who are purposely following a "low-carb diet". It's a flimsy line to me, while others see it as a bigger deal. Why does it matter so much? It all just looks like a comparison to me between people who just happen to lower their carbs when creating calorie deficit and people who choose to lower their carbs to create calorie deficit. And that isn't a huge enough difference to care about, IMO. Low-carb, if done correctly, IS portion control and calorie deficit. Does it matter if people reduce carbs or not? Maybe I don't get it because I just believe too firmly that it doesn't matter which path you pick, as long as you stay on one long-term, and get there. Which version of "sustainability" people find works for them doesn't matter.

I agree.

I suspect the pushback here is mostly that some low carbers will claim that there's a particular problem for EVERYONE from eating carbs such that carbs, not calories, cause weight gain, and no matter your personal preferences going low carb is a better approach. Whereas I (and I think you) say that lowering our carbs (to different levels) is simply a natural reflection of how we find it easiest to lower calories due to personal preferences or satiety issues. Certainly you've seen those who insist that "carbs turn to fat" and thus that eating carbs (even in a deficit) causes weight gain, whereas eating fat and protein (even in a surplus) somehow magically does not. Also, the omnipresent "sugar is the devil" nonsense, of course.

People think that others are being told they MUST cut carbs to lose weight, and whereas I think everyone does (it would be the rare person who cut everything else without touching carbs), it's certainly not true that everyone must reduce their carb percentage--MFP seems to assume we will stay at about the SAD average.

Beyond that, beats me.

I've lost weight before on low carb diets. Unfortunately I always gained it back because I can't eat that way for life. It always causes me problems in the bathroom plus its very expensive and ingesting tons of cholesterol scares me to be quite honest.

I like counting cals. I can eat anything. No cutting out entire food groups.

NextPage wrote: »

Putting health conditions aside, many people benefit from going "lower" carb because they gained weight eating things like bread, soft drinks, sweets and they find it difficult to eat them in moderation. If you are trying to lose weight cutting out foods you can't eat in moderation makes sense. Personally I have a "thing" for cashews and don't buy them because the bag would be gone in a day. This doesn't mean I decided I need to go low-fat, I always make sure I have alternative healthy choices on hand.

However, I can't imagine going to the extremes of super-low carbs since it restricts too many foods which can get boring over time (super quick for me) and it also makes it challenging to reach micronutrient targets for good health. For example, if you have a lunch that includes beets, raspberries (.5 cup) and % fat greek plain yogurt (.75 cup) you are at 28 carbs and 190 calories with good sources calcium, fibre etc. There are so many good carb choices for weight loss and nutrition (berries, root vegetables, quinoa, beans, legumes etc.) that it doesn't make sense, barring medical reasons, to limit all the choices that nature has to offer and instead restrict yourself to some arbitrary 5% or other extreme low carb standard. If you are in a calorie deficit you will lose weight so why make it complicated or nutritionally lacking. However, I agree that people should feel free to do what they want - just refrain from referring to extreme low-carb and keto as the "one true way" and skip the body chemistry lessons.

Almost every human being in the history of existence has been on a restricted diet consisting of a limited amount of food options, eaten regularly across the entirety of their lives.

This whole idea that humans need incredible variety, and indeed even historically have access to immense variety, is a first world myth.

Atkins diet endorses pork rinds, or used to back in the day

baconslave wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

BTW, anything under 120g is considered to be a low-carb diet...
So a great many consider 100g to be a low-carb diet.
The SAD is generally 300g and up.
So those doing 100g are low-carb,

I wouldn't think there was a hard and fast definition, but I think of "low carb" as anything that aims at ketosis or really means that you have to cut out foods or limit even foods like fruits and veggies. I also think it's significant that I was able to drop to 100 grams without feeling any kind of loss of energy even initially or "low carb flu." I expect this is individual, though, but if I hadn't been logging I would have had no clue I was eating even that low--it just seemed like a common sense way for me to cut back calories.

With respect to the SAD, I kind of think the comparison is a little distorted, because the average person eating the SAD also eats far more calories. According to wiki, the SAD is 50% carbs (just like MFP's standard goal!), and at 1200 calories (shockingly, the first calorie recommendation I had from MFP) that would have meant 150 carbs. So my doing 100 (and 1250 calories) was hardly as significant a difference, and didn't mean that I was "cutting out a macro," obviously, but focusing on the foods I preferred and found more satiating. Now I eat 1600 calories (or a bit more), so 50% would be 200, and I aim for 140 and am usually below. Eh, no big difference, it's based on personal preference.

(And I respect that your eating choices are too, and work for you.)

I just don't understand the magnitude of the distinctions and the connotational differences (addressing the forum reactions in general), between those who just happen to eat less carbs accidentally while reducing calories, those who drop high carb foods because they don't like them or don't care about them, and those who are purposely following a "low-carb diet". It's a flimsy line to me, while others see it as a bigger deal. Why does it matter so much? It all just looks like a comparison to me between people who just happen to lower their carbs when creating calorie deficit and people who choose to lower their carbs to create calorie deficit. And that isn't a huge enough difference to care about, IMO. Low-carb, if done correctly, IS portion control and calorie deficit. Does it matter if people reduce carbs or not? Maybe I don't get it because I just believe too firmly that it doesn't matter which path you pick, as long as you stay on one long-term, and get there. Which version of "sustainability" people find works for them doesn't matter.

I think the problems come in when you have low carb evangelists who insist one (or both) of two things: carbs are a problem for everyone; low-carbing can overcome the laws of thermogenics.

I've really never seen anyone have an issue with someone who takes the line that they restrict carbs for personal preference but still knows that it's all about CICO.