Low carb dieters!
Replies
-
You mean this...jennibean40 wrote: »And how many times are you going to quote that same first passage, when i immediately corrected my statement by saying that i dont INTENTIONALLY restrict calories, as a low calorie dieter would.
"Let me rephrase.. i dont keep track of calories. Any diet will restrict calories to some degree. If you go low carb.. you automatically cut out calorie high foods. So yes your calorie count goes down. But say i consume 1200 calories a day that include high carbs... my weight loss slows (practically stops) as compared to a 1200 calorie diet that is low in carbs and i lose .5-.6 lbs a day. The only difference is the carb count. Therefore the restriction of carbs is what helps the weight come off."
You recanted by saying you did not track so how can you say the bolded with any kind of certainty...?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You mean this...jennibean40 wrote: »And how many times are you going to quote that same first passage, when i immediately corrected my statement by saying that i dont INTENTIONALLY restrict calories, as a low calorie dieter would.
"Let me rephrase.. i dont keep track of calories. Any diet will restrict calories to some degree. If you go low carb.. you automatically cut out calorie high foods. So yes your calorie count goes down. But say i consume 1200 calories a day that include high carbs... my weight loss slows (practically stops) as compared to a 1200 calorie diet that is low in carbs and i lose .5-.6 lbs a day. The only difference is the carb count. Therefore the restriction of carbs is what helps the weight come off."
You recanted by saying you did not track so how can you say the bolded with any kind of certainty...?
I'm low carb and made a broccoli cheddar soup that was 258 calories per cup. going low carb doesn't automatically cut calorie high foods. it cuts calorie high carbs, i guess. but those will probably be replaced with calorie high fats.
i wish i could lose half of a pound a day!!0 -
Obviously meaning i dont care where my calorie count is as long as i keep my carbs in limit. You see this handy app also keeps track of other things like vitamins, carbs, sodium, ect.. but as i log my food the info is visible. So saying i track calories is like saying i track my vitamin C. No but i sure can go back and tell you what its been for the past two weeks lol.0
-
If my calories go up, so be it. Cause im not regulating those.0
-
OP you are all over the place. I am glad it's working for you though...0
-
jennibean40 wrote: »Obviously meaning i dont care where my calorie count is as long as i keep my carbs in limit. You see this handy app also keeps track of other things like vitamins, carbs, sodium, ect.. but as i log my food the info is visible. So saying i track calories is like saying i track my vitamin C. No but i sure can go back and tell you what its been for the past two weeks lol.
so now you are back to saying calorie count does not matter, but carb count does.
So if you eat 3000 calories a day and keep you carbs at 10% you will still lose weight?0 -
I'm by no means an expert, but from what I've read I think there is some good science behind it. The CICO rule definitely still applies, but a low-carbohydrate diet does encourage the production of liver enzymes that oxidize fatty acids. As far as I know (from my physiology/biochem textbooks & classes), whether these fatty acids come from food or from fat stores doesn't matter very much - the process for introducing them into the bloodstream to be oxidized into Acetyl-CoA in the liver and go on to produce useable energy is roughly the same.
So when you up your triacylglyceride intake and lower your glucose intake, you start a hormonal/genetic cascade that increases your production of hormones and enzymes that oxidize fatty acids and downregulates some of the enzymes that oxidize sugars (as your body has less of a reason to maintain them) - so you shift your metabolism towards fats. Ultimately, it is possible to be in a state of primarily "fat burning" with lowered catabolism of muscle. (see http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_oxidation)
A few caveats, though: First, if your caloric deficit is too high it doesn't matter what your macros look like - you're going to be breaking down muscle. Second, just upping fat intake without going fully low carb inhibits gastric motility through a few hormones - so it can help your diet. Apparently (and this is just via a few studies that IMO are kind of flawed) people sometimes tend to overestimate how many calories they consume when on a ketogenic (primarily fat) diet. I don't know if this is accurate but it could explain some people's stated ability to "beat" the CICO rule.
TL;DR there's a lot of good science that supports the efficacy of a high-fat/low-carb diet. BUT success on the diet relies heavily on proper caloric intake (i.e. maintaining a moderate deficit). It is likely that many people who don't intentionally restrict caloric intake are inadvertently doing that without realizing it due to hormonal changes from their diet.
Sorry for the wall of text
0 -
That is the crossroads to all this. Some tend to get quite upset when that is pointed out...mastakoala wrote: »It is likely that many people who don't intentionally restrict caloric intake are inadvertently doing that without realizing it
0 -
That is the crossroads to all this. Some tend to get quite upset when that is pointed out...mastakoala wrote: »It is likely that many people who don't intentionally restrict caloric intake are inadvertently doing that without realizing it
seriously, when you tell them they are in a deficit they have a level four flip out...0 -
Yep...
That is the crossroads to all this. Some tend to get quite upset when that is pointed out...mastakoala wrote: »It is likely that many people who don't intentionally restrict caloric intake are inadvertently doing that without realizing it
seriously, when you tell them they are in a deficit they have a level four flip out...0 -
Unfortunately too true, and it really hurts the credibility of the "diet." I personally do low carb because it works well for me, and I watch CICO. On days when I don't feel like watching in/out I can still be pretty confident that I'm not going over due to the mechanics of the diet. It's worked for me in gaining weight and dropping weight.
I can't imagine doing a specialized diet like keto or atkins, though, without making sure I understand the science. Heck, even Dr. Atkins questioned his own science and referred some of his patients to other physicians with different views when the diet didn't work for them. Ultimately, VLC/keto is a medical diet and it can seriously mess you up. I think understanding the science can only protect you and maximize efficiency.0 -
mastakoala wrote: »Unfortunately too true, and it really hurts the credibility of the "diet." I personally do low carb because it works well for me, and I watch CICO. On days when I don't feel like watching in/out I can still be pretty confident that I'm not going over due to the mechanics of the diet. It's worked for me in gaining weight and dropping weight.
I can't imagine doing a specialized diet like keto or atkins, though, without making sure I understand the science. Heck, even Dr. Atkins questioned his own science and referred some of his patients to other physicians with different views when the diet didn't work for them. Ultimately, VLC/keto is a medical diet and it can seriously mess you up. I think understanding the science can only protect you and maximize efficiency.
^ OP you need to talk to this poster..0 -
Amen...mastakoala wrote: »Unfortunately too true, and it really hurts the credibility of the "diet." I personally do low carb because it works well for me, and I watch CICO. On days when I don't feel like watching in/out I can still be pretty confident that I'm not going over due to the mechanics of the diet. It's worked for me in gaining weight and dropping weight.
I can't imagine doing a specialized diet like keto or atkins, though, without making sure I understand the science. Heck, even Dr. Atkins questioned his own science and referred some of his patients to other physicians with different views when the diet didn't work for them. Ultimately, VLC/keto is a medical diet and it can seriously mess you up. I think understanding the science can only protect you and maximize efficiency.
0 -
You say that you are not sure about CICO but then you say you don't want to eat 500 over maintenance because you don't want to gain 12 pounds…isn't that CICO????
again you're just restating everything into your belief system.
I don't want to eat more because I don't want to put on weight. I don't know if I would or not, but I don't need to find out.
0 -
Hey - I've read the study that the image (hosted through a blogspot article) you posted is from - for those who are curious here's the link: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/26/2/197.full.pdf
Here's an expansion on that plot:
This study took place in 1973, when many of the mechanisms of lipid and protein breakdown were not as well-understood as they are today. The study showed that the human body is very good at "switching over" to fat breakdown. The study also showed that simply a switch in calories to primarily fat calories without reducing caloric intake did not lead to sustained weight loss. Note that the study was not long-term, the period of high sustained weight loss was in the introductory phase of the diet, and weight loss was achieved most effectively when a caloric deficit was maintained.
Initial weight loss during this study can be explained in two ways (knowing what we do today about metabolism): (1) Initial consumption of glycogen stores leading to excretion of water - this can be up to several lbs. (2) Actual caloric deficit as the human body takes several days to ramp up fatty acid-oxidizing enzymes. This means that in the early days of a high fat intake, you absolutely will see detectable fat loss, but it won't continue at this rate as your liver gets better at dealing with fats.
Unfortunately, the picture you posted is misleading and many articles take that study out of context or fail to state the entirety of the study. In reality, the study does not disprove the CICO "rule" - it helps to confirm it, but adds the (very necessary) nuance that the "calorie out" part of CICO has a lot to do with how quickly your body can adapt to a dietary change in the short term.0 -
You say that you are not sure about CICO but then you say you don't want to eat 500 over maintenance because you don't want to gain 12 pounds…isn't that CICO????
again you're just restating everything into your belief system.
I don't want to eat more because I don't want to put on weight. I don't know if I would or not, but I don't need to find out.
OK - well you are simply doing the same thing. If you want to ignore calories in vs calories out because you don't want to gain great…it does not invalidate the formula...0 -
mastakoala wrote: »Hey - I've read the study that the image (hosted through a blogspot article) you posted is from - for those who are curious here's the link: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/26/2/197.full.pdf
Here's an expansion on that plot:
This study took place in 1973, when many of the mechanisms of lipid and protein breakdown were not as well-understood as they are today. The study showed that the human body is very good at "switching over" to fat breakdown. The study also showed that simply a switch in calories to primarily fat calories without reducing caloric intake did not lead to sustained weight loss. Note that the study was not long-term, the period of high sustained weight loss was in the introductory phase of the diet, and weight loss was achieved most effectively when a caloric deficit was maintained.
Initial weight loss during this study can be explained in two ways (knowing what we do today about metabolism): (1) Initial consumption of glycogen stores leading to excretion of water - this can be up to several lbs. (2) Actual caloric deficit as the human body takes several days to ramp up fatty acid-oxidizing enzymes. This means that in the early days of a high fat intake, you absolutely will see detectable fat loss, but it won't continue at this rate as your liver gets better at dealing with fats.
Unfortunately, the picture you posted is misleading and many articles take that study out of context or fail to state the entirety of the study. In reality, the study does not disprove the CICO "rule" - it helps to confirm it, but adds the (very necessary) nuance that the "calorie out" part of CICO has a lot to do with how quickly your body can adapt to a dietary change in the short term.
thank you for the explanation0 -
Oops, I forgot to mention that the expanded plot was with olive oil - the team used this instead and increased caloric intake quicker (also went out to 40 days). This doesn't change the argument, but it's worth noting.
Edit: one other thing because I completely forgot to include it and I know it'll come up: the authors did see major weight loss with a high caloric intake (~5000-6000kcal) when the patients were eating enormous amounts of fat (above 300 g a day). I think the enzyme thing can explain that, but I don't have a phd in physiology/biochem so I'm not going to draw conclusions - if someone wants to try that be my guest and let me know how it goes
0 -
mastakoala wrote: »Oops, I forgot to mention that the expanded plot was with olive oil
yes, so not an expanded plot but in fact a different one altogether.
I posted it to show that over 30 days the weight gain of adding 3000 calories of oil was about zero. So it's an example of where the usual use of CICO as "Weight gain = Food intake - x" doesn't work out. Hence my uncertainty of whether I would gain weight or not in ndj's proposed experiment. Seems it would depend what I ate rather than just on the number of calories.
I do not see why it is misleading, the oil was added to a mixed baseline diet and the weight didn't go up. It isn't a unique report of this effect either. A different oil had a different outcome +1/3 of a lb per day for +3700 calories/day but this too falls a country mile short of the CICO doctrine of "500 calories = 1 lb/week".
I don't have an explanation for the effect observed, but I don't think the universe changed since 1973.0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »Yeah if you can find where i said that you can quote me.
Unfortunately, what i ACTUALLY said was i struggled to lose weight on a low calorie diet alone (NOT that i didnt. I said i lost 2-3lbs). And that low carb has improved my results substantially. I also stated that my calories are indeed still low... not bc i bother to try and keep them low, but bc consuming low carb foods results in lower calories. Since my last post on here i have increased my calories by 200 a day and am still experiencing weight loss.
All i ever said was that low carb has made a big difference in MY (me myself i) results. I do not claim it is superior. I do not claim it is for everyone. I believe different types of diets work for different people... hence why even learned scientists still cant agree on every point. To each their own! Happy fitness travels!
I'm with you. I have experience better results since I have restricted my carbs. I feel better phycially and metally, and once I got used to it, its quite easy to follow. I notice when I sneak in a high carb snack (bread, pasta etc.), I immediately feel tired. For me high protein and vegatables are much more sustaining. I don't even need a snack between meals.
Still struggle with my night time munchies. I think that is more of a mental thing.
If it's working for you, stick with it. "If" it stops working, look at changing things then.
Good luck.0 -
Marianne802 wrote: »jennibean40 wrote: »I have experience better results since I have restricted my carbs. I feel better phycially and metally, and once I got used to it, its quite easy to follow.
Me too - if it works, it works. I like low carb and plan to stick with it. Good luck
0 -
Could be the toilet factor. j/kmastakoala wrote: »Oops, I forgot to mention that the expanded plot was with olive oil
yes, so not an expanded plot but in fact a different one altogether.
I posted it to show that over 30 days the weight gain of adding 3000 calories of oil was about zero. So it's an example of where the usual use of CICO as "Weight gain = Food intake - x" doesn't work out. Hence my uncertainty of whether I would gain weight or not in ndj's proposed experiment. Seems it would depend what I ate rather than just on the number of calories.
I do not see why it is misleading, the oil was added to a mixed baseline diet and the weight didn't go up. It isn't a unique report of this effect either. A different oil had a different outcome +1/3 of a lb per day for +3700 calories/day but this too falls a country mile short of the CICO doctrine of "500 calories = 1 lb/week".
I don't have an explanation for the effect observed, but I don't think the universe changed since 1973.
0 -
jennibean40 wrote: »Let me rephrase.. i dont keep track of calories. Any diet will restrict calories to some degree. If you go low carb.. you automatically cut out calorie high foods. So yes your calorie count goes down. But say i consume 1200 calories a day that include high carbs... my weight loss slows (practically stops) as compared to a 1200 calorie diet that is low in carbs and i lose .5-.6 lbs a day. The only difference is the carb count. Therefore the restriction of carbs is what helps the weight come off.
My body responds the same. If I eat 1200 calorie diet with high carbs, my weight loss is minimal. If I chose high protein, low carb foods, my weight loss is much faster. I eat mostly chicken, fish, Greek yogurt, nuts, and lots of veggies. I also carb cycle to keep my metabolism from stalling. Seems to work for me better than any other food plan I've tried.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Could be the toilet factor. j/kmastakoala wrote: »Oops, I forgot to mention that the expanded plot was with olive oil
yes, so not an expanded plot but in fact a different one altogether.
I posted it to show that over 30 days the weight gain of adding 3000 calories of oil was about zero. So it's an example of where the usual use of CICO as "Weight gain = Food intake - x" doesn't work out. Hence my uncertainty of whether I would gain weight or not in ndj's proposed experiment. Seems it would depend what I ate rather than just on the number of calories.
I do not see why it is misleading, the oil was added to a mixed baseline diet and the weight didn't go up. It isn't a unique report of this effect either. A different oil had a different outcome +1/3 of a lb per day for +3700 calories/day but this too falls a country mile short of the CICO doctrine of "500 calories = 1 lb/week".
I don't have an explanation for the effect observed, but I don't think the universe changed since 1973.
You say you're joking but I don't want to know what kinds of *kitten* someone has who has to add 3000 calories of olive oil additionally to their normal diet.
By the same token you could say laxatives and rotten food are good for weight loss.0 -
Yeah, the digestion part seems to mess people up when it comes to the math. Definitely still part of the "out side" of the EBEstevencloser wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Could be the toilet factor. j/kmastakoala wrote: »Oops, I forgot to mention that the expanded plot was with olive oil
yes, so not an expanded plot but in fact a different one altogether.
I posted it to show that over 30 days the weight gain of adding 3000 calories of oil was about zero. So it's an example of where the usual use of CICO as "Weight gain = Food intake - x" doesn't work out. Hence my uncertainty of whether I would gain weight or not in ndj's proposed experiment. Seems it would depend what I ate rather than just on the number of calories.
I do not see why it is misleading, the oil was added to a mixed baseline diet and the weight didn't go up. It isn't a unique report of this effect either. A different oil had a different outcome +1/3 of a lb per day for +3700 calories/day but this too falls a country mile short of the CICO doctrine of "500 calories = 1 lb/week".
I don't have an explanation for the effect observed, but I don't think the universe changed since 1973.
You say you're joking but I don't want to know what kinds of *kitten* someone has who has to add 3000 calories of olive oil additionally to their normal diet.
By the same token you could say laxatives and rotten food are good for weight loss.
0 -
OP.....
This thread is all confusing
Tbh, I view low-card dieting as short term diet. However, whatever works for you kiddo. 0 -
So I'm starting a low carb diet and I've been reading a lot of what everyone is saying.. So why do people view this as "bad" for the body?? I mean I know we need carb for energy to even workout but high makes a person gain weight or hard to lose. Any opinion on this??0
-
sandratampa wrote: »jennibean40 wrote: »Let me rephrase.. i dont keep track of calories. Any diet will restrict calories to some degree. If you go low carb.. you automatically cut out calorie high foods. So yes your calorie count goes down. But say i consume 1200 calories a day that include high carbs... my weight loss slows (practically stops) as compared to a 1200 calorie diet that is low in carbs and i lose .5-.6 lbs a day. The only difference is the carb count. Therefore the restriction of carbs is what helps the weight come off.
My body responds the same. If I eat 1200 calorie diet with high carbs, my weight loss is minimal. If I chose high protein, low carb foods, my weight loss is much faster. I eat mostly chicken, fish, Greek yogurt, nuts, and lots of veggies. I also carb cycle to keep my metabolism from stalling. Seems to work for me better than any other food plan I've tried.
sorry it does not work that way ….
1200 vs 1200 is 1200 ….low carb/high carb does not matter. Unless you have a medical condition ...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions