Is it better to be on a high carb,low fat diet or a low carb,high fat diet?

Options
jodidari
jodidari Posts: 95 Member
in Food and Nutrition
If you've tried either can you tell me how it has worked for you and examples of foods you ate. I'm currently just trying to lower the amount of carbs i take in but i'm wondering if that plus my regular fat and protein levesl will result in me feeling low on energy.
«1

Replies

  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    Unless you have a medical reason to watch carbs or fats, it's personal preference
  • pinggolfer96
    pinggolfer96 Posts: 2,248 Member
    Options
    Depends if you're doing it for medical reasons or preference, but in terms of weight loss, it's better to be in an overall caloric deficit. The problem with low fat is that our body needs fat (essential macronutrient).
  • BurnWithBarn2015
    BurnWithBarn2015 Posts: 1,026 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    I eat high carb ( not low fat or anything)
    And works perfect for me. I do watch the fact that i get as much as possible proteins

    Others do low

    You have to do what is good for you how you like to eat and how you want to eat in the future when you maintain your weight
    The only thing important is your calorie deficit to lose weight ( when you dont have any medical issues like diabetics etc)

    So creat a deficit by weighing all your food and eat a balanced diet ( and what you want only smaller portion)

    That is how it worked for me. But everybody is different..

    95069916.png
  • hamlet1222
    hamlet1222 Posts: 459 Member
    Options
    Whichever has the menu you prefer and are likely to stick to. would you find it easier to cut back on bread and cereals, or cheese and bacon? As everyone above me has said, just get your calorie deficit planned and stick to it.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Why does it have to be one of those? I do moderate carbs and fat and protein. It's whatever diet appeals most to you and makes it easier for you to be satisfied at a sensible calorie level.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    Carb level is mostly a personal preference. Fats are required for proper nutrient absorption for fat soluble vitamins. Plus, fats can greatly help the digestive tract.

    I would recommend setting your protein and fat goals based on your weight (I do 0.35g fat per lb at goal weight and 0.6-0.8g protein ber lb at goal weight). Then, set the carb level based on your personal goals, allergies, and reaction to carbs.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    auddii wrote: »
    Carb level is mostly a personal preference. Fats are required for proper nutrient absorption for fat soluble vitamins. Plus, fats can greatly help the digestive tract.

    I would recommend setting your protein and fat goals based on your weight (I do 0.35g fat per lb at goal weight and 0.6-0.8g protein ber lb at goal weight). Then, set the carb level based on your personal goals, allergies, and reaction to carbs.

    Yup

    A whole heap of this
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    auddii wrote: »
    Carb level is mostly a personal preference. Fats are required for proper nutrient absorption for fat soluble vitamins. Plus, fats can greatly help the digestive tract.

    I would recommend setting your protein and fat goals based on your weight (I do 0.35g fat per lb at goal weight and 0.6-0.8g protein ber lb at goal weight). Then, set the carb level based on your personal goals, allergies, and reaction to carbs.

    ^This. Fats can go as high as .45g per pound or higher, but I tend to go lower, and stick with the lower protein figure, because I like carbs.

    In the past, I took a different approach because I was working out less and it worked best then. It's all preference once you meet these minimums.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    Whatever works for you. High carb is not ideal because carbs are typically less filling than protein and fat, unless they're also high in fiber. Low fat isn't so great either because your body needs fat, and fat is filling. Low protein is probably a very bad idea altogether.

    But after that.. yeah. do what works for you. For me it was 40% carb 30% fat 30% protein when I was losing (now I'm closer to 20-22% protein).
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    If the choice is the two? High fat. More satiety.
    That said, is there a reason for the dichotomy?
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    It's interesting to me to see fat promoted as being satiating.

    The reason that's interesting is because at one point for me it was, and then ... it stopped being that way.

    I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but I'd like to put the idea out there that what's satiating might vary from person to person. Even at that, what a particular individual finds satiating might change depending on their current activity level.

    (I'm assuming my new-found carb satiety and dissatisfaction with fat is due to taking up running. It could be down to some other factor of which I'm not aware.)

    The take-away from this rambling mess of a post? If your macro balance isn't working for you? Don't be afraid to tweak it. If you feel yourself getting hungry at some point during the course of your diet/life -- don't be afraid to play with your macros. I've already adjusted mine twice to respond to periods of hunger, and it's worked really well for me.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    PeachyCarol wrote: »
    It's interesting to me to see fat promoted as being satiating.

    The reason that's interesting is because at one point for me it was, and then ... it stopped being that way.

    I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but I'd like to put the idea out there that what's satiating might vary from person to person. Even at that, what a particular individual finds satiating might change depending on their current activity level.

    (I'm assuming my new-found carb satiety and dissatisfaction with fat is due to taking up running. It could be down to some other factor of which I'm not aware.)

    The take-away from this rambling mess of a post? If your macro balance isn't working for you? Don't be afraid to tweak it. If you feel yourself getting hungry at some point during the course of your diet/life -- don't be afraid to play with your macros. I've already adjusted mine twice to respond to periods of hunger, and it's worked really well for me.
    I'm sure it is personal. But I've never thought of a low fat diet as satisfying. but again, all personal.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    Fat's not satiating for me (and according to studies seems to be on average the least satiating macro). If I had to choose between the two (and thank goodness I do not), HC and LF would be more satiating.

    I find lots of the carbier things I eat, like fruit and beans and potatoes/sweet potatoes to be quite filling. Butter and oils are tasty for me (why I wouldn't do low fat, also I like having a variety of meats and nuts and avocado and of course cheese, etc.), but not filling at all. I don't find an equal amount of full fat dairy more satiating than skim. I overate manchego last night and sadly wasn't even particularly full afterwards.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    PeachyCarol wrote: »
    It's interesting to me to see fat promoted as being satiating.

    The reason that's interesting is because at one point for me it was, and then ... it stopped being that way.

    I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but I'd like to put the idea out there that what's satiating might vary from person to person. Even at that, what a particular individual finds satiating might change depending on their current activity level.

    (I'm assuming my new-found carb satiety and dissatisfaction with fat is due to taking up running. It could be down to some other factor of which I'm not aware.)

    The take-away from this rambling mess of a post? If your macro balance isn't working for you? Don't be afraid to tweak it. If you feel yourself getting hungry at some point during the course of your diet/life -- don't be afraid to play with your macros. I've already adjusted mine twice to respond to periods of hunger, and it's worked really well for me.

    This is a really good point as well.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    PeachyCarol wrote: »
    It's interesting to me to see fat promoted as being satiating.

    The reason that's interesting is because at one point for me it was, and then ... it stopped being that way.

    I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but I'd like to put the idea out there that what's satiating might vary from person to person. Even at that, what a particular individual finds satiating might change depending on their current activity level.

    (I'm assuming my new-found carb satiety and dissatisfaction with fat is due to taking up running. It could be down to some other factor of which I'm not aware.)

    The take-away from this rambling mess of a post? If your macro balance isn't working for you? Don't be afraid to tweak it. If you feel yourself getting hungry at some point during the course of your diet/life -- don't be afraid to play with your macros. I've already adjusted mine twice to respond to periods of hunger, and it's worked really well for me.
    I'm sure it is personal. But I've never thought of a low fat diet as satisfying. but again, all personal.

    It's weird. When I first started losing weight, I was a volume eater, low starch, high protein, lower fat to get that volume. All good.

    Then I got HUNGRY.

    I cut back on the volume, upped my fat and BAM ... I felt great, the hunger went away, and I stayed that way for a good long time.

    Then I got HUNGRY again, and I was craving things like popcorn and oatmeal.

    So I cut the fat back to a minimal number and added some starchy carbs back to see how things went.

    They're going really well. I feel fuller on a bowl of protein oats and pumpkin than the full-fat cottage cheese and pumpkin with nuts I had been eating instead.

    A bowl of air-popped popcorn keeps me full for a long time.

    It's really weird, because I never used to be like this with starches.

    At some point as my body gets more used to running, this might all change again. I'll be ready. It won't be anything new, that's for sure!
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    For me, it is low carb high fat.

    I crave carbs and sugars. I can't moderate them successfully but elimination seems to work fantastically. My sugar cravings are basically eliminated which is quite amazing. Sugar was big for me. If I didn't have sugars every few hours I felt poorly. It's quite freeing to no long crave sugar.

    I have autoimmune issues and sugar increases my inflammation. I am much healthier without sugar, and in much less pain.

    I have insulin resistance in the form of prediabetes. Eating low carb keeps my blood sugars in check quite well.

    (And by sugar, I mean foods that convert to sugar - glucose - in the blood)

    LCHF all the way. ;)
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    Options
    Eh, I just eat a mix. Overall, I find starchy foods filling (pasta keeps me full for a long time, for example) and sugary things not very filling, so I eat somewhat less of those. Mainly I eat what I like, with the caveat that on days I am going to train, I eat a higher protein goal and really try to meet it.
  • decotterell
    decotterell Posts: 47 Member
    Options
    I'm not a fitness expert, but all I do is watch my calorie intake. I have lost 62.5 pounds and have maintained my current weight of about 160 since February this year doing so. In my experience, weight loss is most about input vs. output. If you are putting in more than your burning, you gain weight. If your burning more than your putting in, you lose weight. The calorie recommendations on MFP have been fairly accurate for me. My son has done the same thing and has lost over 130 pounds in about 13 months.
  • FeelStrongBeStrong
    FeelStrongBeStrong Posts: 6 Member
    Options
    I'd say neither. Just find what works best for you. You don't need to drastically restrict one particular macro-nutrient to lose weight. Instead eat a well balanced diet that includes the foods you enjoy.

Categories