Low carb dieters!

neanderthin wrote: »

Could be the toilet factor. j/k

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.

ndj1979 wrote: »

misscaligreen wrote: »

Seriously 16 pages of arguing WITHOUT low carbers seeing the ONLY argument by the majority of CICO people is NOT that low carb is wrong, doesn't work, evil, or barbaric It DOES work, wonderfully in fact.... as long as there is a calorie deficit. End of story. Choose what you like to eat. No carbs or everything in moderation. Keep a deficit and lose weight. YAY we all win! Why do low carbers feel they are being attacked? Or feel the need to defend the OP? This is just an open discussion the problem lies in the fact that people fail to see that there is no point in arguing. Science is science. Facts are facts. A deficit ensures weight loss (medical conditions being an exception I am sure) Choose how to create your deficit and enjoy. If anyone disagrees with the deficit "theory" please track your calories, weigh and log accurately and come back in 4 months and lets see if you have in fact lost weight with NO CALORIE DEFICIT by eating low carb

because the butthurt is strong in MFP threads....

RockstarWilson wrote: »

jennibean40 wrote: »

Loe carb isnt just meat and cheese. Your friend obviously went the same route as mine.. thinking ANYTHING low carb was a good choice. Untrue. I consume veggies, dairy, and lean meats mostly. Eggs, and only drink water. As i said.. i know my results. I tried for three years after my first child to lose weight on restricted calorie diets. I always felt hungry. I was cranky. And i barely lost weight. On low carb i lost 20lbs in two months.. incliding cheay days and skipping workouts. I sincerely respect your point of views.. but there is evidence and studies to prove both diets can help with weight loss.. so kudos to you for yours and kudos to me for mine. This is however a forum i created for people ON low carb to share their experiences.. feel free to make a low calorie forum

You lost your audience with this statement.

ndj1979 wrote: »

eric_sg61 wrote: »

jennibean40 wrote: »

According to my research ketosis (the state the body enters during low carb diets) burns almost solely body fat... and since i dont restrict calories i still maintain normal energy and function levels. Have you had different experiences?

You're burning more DIETARY fat.
http://sigmanutrition.com/eat-more-fat-burn-more-fat-myth-magic-or-metabolic-advantage/

OP since you decided not to read this study here is the conclusion …

Conclusion
When we oxidise fatty acids we can generate ATP which can be used for energy production. In essence, this process is the fat-burning process we hear about. Taking available fat and using it up for the purposes of energy production.

Sounds good so far. So where’s the problem?

Just because we’re burning more fat, does that mean we are burning the fat that is stored in our fat tissue?

On a high-fat diet or after we eat a high-fat meal, we are going to break the triglycerides in food down to fatty acids and glycerol. We’ll then have a ton of fatty acids readily available to be used for energy production. Additionally we know that we can oxidise intramuscular triglycerides (fat stored between muscle) and fat in VLDL particles.

[Am I losing anyone? If so don’t worry, this will become clear as we go through the post. Don’t give up on me now! Power through! If you can get this, it will make a huge difference to your ability to evaluate different dietary approaches for fat loss]

So all that fat we’re burning is the fatty acids in the bloodstream. And when we eat more fat, we have more of it in the bloodstream.

Meaning, if “burning more fat” simply equates to oxidizing more fatty acids then of course we should be burning more fat when we eat more fat… there’s a whole load more of it available, right?

I mean that makes sense doesn’t it?

So yes, you could say we are “burning” more fat. But the question really is this:

What does this mean in relation to body fat levels?
This is where things get a bit more interesting and very nuanced.

At first glance, at least from as much as I’ve been able to conclude so far from the available evidence, is that the fat we’re burning is coming from the increased fatty acids made available to us from out meals unless… yep, you guessed it, we’re in a calorie deficit.

I can’t seen evidence of any potential mechanism by which it is possible to lose body fat without having a negative energy imbalance (i.e. expenditure is higher than input). There are hypotheses of there being a “metabolic advantage” when in ketosis for example, but that’s far from accepted.

But even beyond all that, even when fat IS released from fat cells, that still doesn’t necessarily mean we are actually losing fat.

Does this mean high-fat diets have no use in a fat loss situation then? Absolutely not.

I think high-fat diets (N.B. provided carbohydrates are low) can be an excellent tool for certain people. And I’ve talked about this previously. It really does come down to the metabolic state of the individual. In those with insulin resistance and blood sugar dysregulation then a low-carb/high-fat diet (LCHF) can be therapeutic and help return some insulin sensitivity, in turn putting the person in a better position to potentially lose fat.

BUT (there’s always a but in nutrition) if we look at what actually happens in the process of fat and carbohydrate metabolism it starts to become clearer that fat loss really will be determined by caloric intake, with most other variables being equal (including protein intake, which is often forgotten about in studies).

So yes, while you burn more fat on a high-fat diet, you have more of it to burn.

This right here is where the ketogenic/LCHF diet will shine. Lets say between 6am and 7pm, I hypothetically burn 1400 calories. If my breakfast at 6am is 800 calories and is 80%fat/17%protein/3% carbs, and that 800 calories last me until 7pm, my body will have HAD to use some of my stored energy, and therefore be in a deficit. How much of that energy burnoff is from actual fat, I don't know on a molecular level, but I would have to guess that most of it is fat, as the body would first have to break down the muscle into proteins and then convert again to usable energy.

If my glycogen stores are fairly low, and my carbs at breakfast were restricted, my body has no choice but to use the food or use the fat. What if the food is digested? What if it is 3:00, and I have hit that 800 calorie burn, will I get hunger signals? Eating this way, I wont, and my body will run off of what it has until I eat again. I am in full control of eating, as my body is not as reliant on food ingestion for energy as it is while using carb-rich foods for energy. While eating carbs as a good portion of my meal, once the food is gone, I will get hunger pangs and have to eat to function.

So, yeah, we (VLC/HF eaters) have more of it to burn, but if the food we eat does not limit our activities, then we are always in a deficit. I think that was what the OP was trying to get at. She just took a more defensive stance (ironically, as it was self-initiated) and didn't really say what she was thinking in the right context.

*I would just like to add that this is why my first meal is usually not until after Noon. Like today, all I have had is HWC coffee. I woke up at 6, and it is now 2:21 Arizona time. I am still going. yeah, I can feel that my stomach is empty, but it is not painstaking. I could go out and run 3 miles if I wanted to. Hmm...now that I mention it....I think I just might!