avoiding carbs makes you lose weight

Then what explains the proven fact that Low carbers eat more, and lose more then low calorie folks?

Do you have any data on this?

I've seen studies that people lose weight more quickly eating low-carb. But, when I've taken a look at the charts in actually studies, the low-carbers seem to eat slightly less calories per day than comparison diet, even when they're unrestricted. (It probably has to do with the feeling of satiety?)

If you know a study which shows greater loss weight loss on low carb diets, calorie for calorie, please share. Maybe there is some type of metabolic effect, I don't know.

Actually, look no further than the A to Z study published March 7, 2007 in JAMA (297:269) There were no significant difference in caloric consumption between the 4 diet groups at any time point in the study and only at the two month follow-up was the Low carb group even the lowest mean consumer of calories. Now we don't know what happened to each individual ( which would be more interpretable), but we do know that the low-carb group as a whole had the greatest weight loss at 12 months and the best metabolic profile of the 4 diet.

Individuals vary. Personal preferences and social norms will have a big impact on whether a particular eating style is successful for a specific individual.

I have been through several nutrition classes and spoke with trainers and nutritionists alike, and they pretty much all say the same thing... 50% or more of your calories should come from carbs... with a 2 to 1 ratio of carbs to proteins. Then the rest is supposed to come from fat.

A one-size-fits-all mentality is the wrong approach to take. A person’s ideal macronutrient breakdown is largely determined by what the person’s goals are as well as their individual biological characteristics, such as sensitivity to carbs. Also, mainstream science when it comes to nutrition is pretty conservative and often outdated. What is the US RDA on fish oil? Oh yeah, that’s right…there isn’t one!

For someone who isn’t carb sensitive and does a lot of endurance training, a 50% carb breakdown would be OK. For someone who is at 15% bodyfat and wishes to get to 10% by setting a daily caloric deficit and lifting weights, a 50% carb breakdown would make things really difficult. Sure, weight would be lost but so would a good amount of muscle. To set up a proper protein sparing meal plan, it is critical to set protein levels very high.

With that said, mainstream nutrition is conservative for a very good reason. Can you imagine the abuse and misinterpretation that would ensue if the RDA said to eat a high protein diet if you want to lose weight while minimizing muscle loss? It would get pretty ugly.

The problem with this is, Primal/Paleo is not a high protein diet per-se. It is a high fat diet with moderate protein and low carbohydrate intake. If you look at what primal folks eat (me) I eat 70% of my calories a day in healthy fats. 25% is my protein and only 5% is my carb intake. I love me some high fat beef!

The difference is ketosis. When a person is in ketosis they are burning ketones (calories) for energy. But that is not all....they are sneaking out ketones in their breathe and in their urine, unburned! So you are actually getting more calories out without expending the same energy that you would on a low calorie (calories in=calories out) regime. So a person can eat a daily diet of 2000+ calories and lose weight regularly compared to having to keep calories at a deficit.

Very misinformed.

Urinary and breath excretion of acetone is negligible in terms of caloric loss, amounting to a maximum of 100 calories per day.

Then what explains the proven fact that Low carbers eat more, and lose more then low calorie folks?

Proven fact? Correlation does not imply causation.


Eliminating any one macronutrient, including carbs, would in turn lower overall caloric intake in the event that dietary fat and protein were not increased.

Well, this is my point...fat is increased substantially! And people lose weight!

I really want to post an "I don't give a f***" response picture right now, but I'll stay off the mods bad side for now.

The diet FOR ME that worked best was Atkins. So for me, carbs are the enemy. However I rarely eat meat, so I would be very very limited if I go back to Atkins (with my personal modifications). I honestly think it is an individual thing. I do best without carbs. I do not crave when I get rid of them. I lose faster when I get rid of them. HOWEVER, I WANT A LIFESTYLE CHANGE NOT A DIET. I want to eat sensibly things I like and get the pounds off and keep them off. Anything that I cannot sustain spells trouble for me over time.

I tried Atkins back in Summer of 2009. Low carbs, high protein.... lost 23 pounds in 2 months but gained it all back when I quit. I like my carbs too much. Last July I started Weight Watchers and using MFP & have found that a healthy balance of all types of foods allows me to lose weight & know that I can stick with it forever.

Me too. But I keep coming back. It has to become my lifestyle. I cannot do low calorie/low fat. I am pre-diabetic. I have to start controlling my carbs now. I love eating low carb/high fat! Yummmmm. I get to drink my coffee with heavy whipping cream and my cauliflower dripping with real butter, not some artificial, chemically altered butter substitute! By the way, dinner tonight: 4 oz fried pork chop with 2 cups of steamed fresh cauliflower with a cheese sauce. I am full and happy.

I watched an Episode of Dr OZ recently about carbs. He says that carbs are like drugs. They effect the same part of the brain that coke and heroin do that make u feel good.. Eating carbs is ok but you gata stick to healthy carbs.. white flour is no good for you.. you gata have whole wheat and grains.. I make whole wheat pizza, if i have pasta I use whole wheat.. use grains like bulgar and brown rice.. But you also have to limit yourself on how much your eating as well... All in moderation.. i know we all hate that saying but its true.

I make a wonderful pizza with a cheese/egg crust (kind of like a thin quiche). It is so satisfying that one piece is all I need. It takes me 3 days to eat it all. Now if it was a whole wheat crust...I want it all now. I am not full with just one piece. That is why this way of eating is great. I have no cravings and I am full faster.

yeah if i make the whole wheat pizza i eat it only one night. I made it tonight with spinach, peppers, onions and chicken sausage.
I had 3 small pieces and the rest if going to my co-workers tomorrow. I felt like pizza and got it out of my system...=)

I'm a celiac so I can't have diary or wheat and I can guarantee you my weight did not just disappear.

As with all things balance is important.

Animal protein has it's own dangers. Your body has to shed calcium and magnesium to digest it, thus you lose bone mass by consuming animal protein. Vegans who do not eat any animal products have the least bone loss. You actually get plenty of calcium from a natural diet that dairy is not necessary.

So going all animal proteins isn't good for your body at all. Counties with the highest consumption of animal products have the highest level of osteoperosis, where as countries with the lowest animal product consumption has the lowest.

As for myself I am an unrepentant omnivoir. I realize the health benefits of going vegan or even vegetarian but I'm not willing to go there just yet. Instead I strive for balance. I am eating more protein now a days, though I'm trying to switch gradually to more plant based proteins, because I am trying to build healthy lean muscle, which does need protein and complex carbs to thrive.

Each to their own, I guess, but scientifically low carb or low fat, or low protein all lose the same amount of weight on a calorie basis. It's about calories in vs calories out though not that simple. Not all calories are created equal but that's a discussion for another day.

So much wrong there it makes me sad. You can't be an omnivore. They haven't found a term to classify a modern humans digestive system yet. You can't build the best muscle possible heading towards the vegan side of things. Unless of course you want to supplement from the non vegan side of things. You CANNOT get a complete protein profile from that strategy and you CANNOT get B12, which humans need, from that kind of diet with out supplements.

Follow the money!

You're proving the stereotype of drummers.

I'm saying that this is a real world active control trial of the diets. (the A to Z trial educated the participants in each arm according to the tenents of the diet in it's published form i.e. Atkin, Zone,etc.) This was a test of what real people did trying to follow the diets they were assigned in their own homes. They were also followed for a full year, not some 6 week fat camp study. It also dovetails quite nicely with the DIOgenes European weight maintenance study looking at the value of increased protein and decreased glycemic index (the other study I posted) in long term weight maintenance.

I am an empiricist. I could make anyone lose weight if I stuck them in a ward someplace and controlled their diet at a low calorie level and made them exercise. The important question is what happens with "free range" people in the real world. That is what should influence us.-out

*bump* What an interesting thread. Now I want to know how many copies of the potato-eating gene I have. (from the link way back on page 1)

If you know a study which shows greater loss weight loss on low carb diets, calorie for calorie, please share. Maybe there is some type of metabolic effect, I don't know.

Actually, look no further than the A to Z study published March 7, 2007 in JAMA (297:269) There were no significant difference in caloric consumption between the 4 diet groups at any time point in the study and only at the two month follow-up was the Low carb group even the lowest mean consumer of calories. Now we don't know what happened to each individual ( which would be more interpretable), but we do know that the low-carb group as a whole had the greatest weight loss at 12 months and the best metabolic profile of the 4 diet.

You mean this study?

http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969.full

It's important to look at the data tables when you evaluate a study, not just the abstract or conclusion.

After 12 months, the group that lost the most weight out of women averaging 189 pounds at start lost...10 pounds? (Atkins.) That's less than 1 pound a month. Further, if you look at the data table that tracked weight, ALL groups regained some weight:

http://jama.highwire.org/content/297/9/969/F2.expansion.html

The Atkins group did lose the most by the 2 month mark. But if you calculate what they should be losing based on their average weights (86kg/189 pounds) and average calorie intake (1381), they lose exactly what they should be from plain old calorie restriction - about 10 pounds in two months (at that weight they would need about 1950 cal/day to maintain at sedentary activity levels, at a caloric deficit of 569/day, that's 34,140 calorie deficit or about 9.75 pounds.) Not sure what happened to the other groups. It's possible that Aktins was easier to adhere to, at least initially.

But, in the later part of the study - they all gained! Even if you adjusted for their modest weight loss, each group should have continued to lose slowly on their reported caloric intake, rather than gain. The women in the Aktins group purportedly put on weight while eating 50g/carb a day AND reduced calories in the Atkins "continued weight loss phase" of their plan, and gained the most back out of all the groups. Not good.

This is indicative of problems with reported data. It's disappointing that it wasn't addressed.

If carbs were an factor, then you would expect the ZONE group which restricted carbs to 40% to out-lose the LEARN group who ate a whopping 55-60% carbs. They didn't, at any point.

Weight loss tends to correlate with metabolic profile so that's not unusual that the group that lost the most had the best profile.

I still think it's possible that there is some benefit to carb restriction independent of calorie restriction, but, I wouldn't hang my hat on this one. The only thing that you could conclude is that all of the diets failed by 12 months.

Got anything else?

The only thing that you could conclude is that all of the diets failed by 12 months.

Diets always fail. Life changes tend to stick. good or bad. I often think people are chasing the fountain of youth via the weight loss body image pursuit. I hope they know age will happen. You will get old, you will wrinkle, you will die of something you're trying to prevent purely of age. And I hope they have vaults of money stashed somewhere to live to a very old age. I'm just trying to put the odds in my favor to enjoy a few years of retirement before the $$ runs dry.