Low carb or Low calorie
Replies
-
I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
You are aware that your own graphic showed significant weight Loss in the group that improved their Glucose and barely any weight Loss in the other? Let me guess just from that graphic, calories we're not accounted for and the amounts waren only taken from recall. That about right?0 -
allaboutthefood wrote: »
So whole natural foods are bad and dead flesh is good? I found this and it sounds like they are trying to find a new drug to help people with high cholesterol purge it out. If this article is for real? I will keep looking for this sugar causes cholesterol info. But I really don't think I will find it. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/johns_hopkins_scientists_alter_fat_metabolism_in_animals_to_prevent_most_common_type_of_heart_disease
Do vegans/vegetarians really think that calling meat "dead flesh" will scare omnivores into compliance? That's rather funny because the Afrikaans word for meat is the English equivalent of flesh
0 -
Eating low carb is a strategy you can use to help you, but when you loose weight, how will you eat after low carb?
And when you eat low carb, you still have to eat LOW CALORIE (calorie deficit).. So....
How will you know what will and will not work for you? Got to try it or just stick to the easy rule CICO.0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »I love low carb diets. I feel better and not always hungry. My doctor told me that now they are discovering that low carb is the way to go. I don't remember which heart institute came out with a study but I think it was John Hopkins that fat and cholesterol is not the cause of plaque build up and heart disease. Sugar is.
I doubt that. Johns Hopkins (Johns please) continues to recommend changes in exercise, weight reduction and "dietary changes including reduced fat, cholesterol, and simple carbohydrates (such as sweets), and increased amounts of fruits and vegetables, low-fat dairy, and lean meats."
High blood glucose can cause vascular damage over time - but it isn't the cause of plaque build up. It's a multifactorial event - the best thing you can do against it is ... exercise and weight loss. Dietary factors are secondary to that.
0 -
While pregnant I had gestational diabetes. I got used to eating low carb. Not only did it get my sugars in line, but it also kept me from gaining a whole lot. I only gained 22lbs. I got lazy with it until my 6 wk checkup when I saw the last 5 lbs lingering. (Too tired to cook so lots of eating out lol) now I'm back on it and doing a combination of low carb and low cal depending on what I'm eating. I gravitate to things higher protein and higher fiber bc I stay full longer with lower carbs. Sometimes dinner may throw me over my calorie limit but I'm mostly eating the meat s d veggies. I font own a scale lol but I can tell a difference already0
-
Give your diet a chance, 3 weeks isn't a lot of time to notice much. If you continue to struggle then yeah try something else but keep in mind low carb does not mean you don't have to count calories, you still do. The difference is you're eating more fats and protein instead of carbs, and it's meant to keep you fuller for longer.
Do whichever works best!
Would like the point out, that the items with the highest satiety ratings are protein and fiber. And in some cases starches. Personally, fats do not fill me up.I'm on a high fat, low carb diet and I'm losing weight. In fact, I can eat ~2500 calories a day (from fat and protein) and I still lose weight.
Interesting enough, so do I and I follow fairly high carb.. but one's calorie range to lose weight, is mainly based on their body composition and activity level. And if you are looking at the thermal effect of food, fat is the lowest energy as it roughly burns 2-3%, carbs are 5-6% and protein is 20-25%.
In the end, none of this matters if the OP can't stick with a diet. Dietary adherence is the MOST important factor in a sustainable diet. It honestly doesn't matter what the science says, if you cannot stick with it.
OP, you can give it a try for a few months. But before you start, make sure you understand the requirements for increased sodium to help balance electrolytes and help offset some of the flu symptoms, and understand the balance between fats and carbs.
Personally, i struggle without carbs, but many people do very well with it.0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »I love low carb diets. I feel better and not always hungry. My doctor told me that now they are discovering that low carb is the way to go. I don't remember which heart institute came out with a study but I think it was John Hopkins that fat and cholesterol is not the cause of plaque build up and heart disease. Sugar is.
But of course you have no link or proof.0 -
Wow this looks like diet MMA...everyone has an opinion of what works and what doesn't, because what works for one may not work for the other..I tried vegan..felt weak..I tried lo fat. felt weak..i do lo carb..ATKINS..have lost 100 pounds look better and feel better than I ever have. i do NOT have high cholesterol or BP btw..but that's just what worked for me..Losing weight it trial and error but..in the end..it is simple..Calories in calories out keep the ones coming in lower than going out and you'll lose whether you sit down to a steak a bar of tofu or bowl of cocoa puffs. Whatever you chose to do..HAS TO BE MADE A WAY OF LIFE..not a quick fix diet or you will regain on ANY Way of Eating.0
-
I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
So the control group, didn't really lose weight and thus didn't see any benefits of weight loss because they were basically uncotrolled as to their diet and likely weren't reducing calories. No flaw in that study. As usually, you just cherry pick and probably don't even read the studies you post.0 -
I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
And then look at the signal to noise ratios and ask yourself how meaningful these results are.0 -
stefaniezoeller wrote: »Wow this looks like diet MMA...everyone has an opinion of what works and what doesn't, because what works for one may not work for the other..I tried vegan..felt weak..I tried lo fat. felt weak..i do lo carb..ATKINS..have lost 100 pounds look better and feel better than I ever have. i do NOT have high cholesterol or BP btw..but that's just what worked for me..Losing weight it trial and error but..in the end..it is simple..Calories in calories out keep the ones coming in lower than going out and you'll lose whether you sit down to a steak a bar of tofu or bowl of cocoa puffs. Whatever you chose to do..HAS TO BE MADE A WAY OF LIFE..not a quick fix diet or you will regain on ANY Way of Eating.
The last sentence is something we try to encourage here because ALL diets work until you get off of them. Only a life style change can really keep it off and the odds are against it because most people only look at the goal weight but don't look past it.0 -
Lower carb helps me to be less hungry, so it works for me.0
-
allaboutthefood wrote: »
So whole natural foods are bad and dead flesh is good? I found this and it sounds like they are trying to find a new drug to help people with high cholesterol purge it out. If this article is for real? I will keep looking for this sugar causes cholesterol info. But I really don't think I will find it. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/johns_hopkins_scientists_alter_fat_metabolism_in_animals_to_prevent_most_common_type_of_heart_disease
Do vegans/vegetarians really think that calling meat "dead flesh" will scare omnivores into compliance? That's rather funny because the Afrikaans word for meat is the English equivalent of flesh
Same with Latin and, as a result, some Latin-based languages like Italian and Spanish (carne, Latin carnim -- also the derivation for carnivore).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »allaboutthefood wrote: »
So whole natural foods are bad and dead flesh is good? I found this and it sounds like they are trying to find a new drug to help people with high cholesterol purge it out. If this article is for real? I will keep looking for this sugar causes cholesterol info. But I really don't think I will find it. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/johns_hopkins_scientists_alter_fat_metabolism_in_animals_to_prevent_most_common_type_of_heart_disease
Do vegans/vegetarians really think that calling meat "dead flesh" will scare omnivores into compliance? That's rather funny because the Afrikaans word for meat is the English equivalent of flesh
Same with Latin and, as a result, some Latin-based languages like Italian and Spanish (carne -- also the derivation for carnivore).
I've also heard that there is an old English joke about animals being English when they are alive and French when they are dead because the words we use for meats in English tend to come from French.0 -
Back to original question: low carb vs low calorie?
Okay, are you truly low carb or low processed sugar and flour? There is a huge difference. It makes me crazy. Carbs are in vegetables, fruits, nuts oats, etc, etc....these are all healthy foods loaded with minerals, fiber, vitamins, micronutrients and macros. Are you just eating meat and fats on these low carb diets? If so I can see now why the low carb haters don't agree. I try to avoid sugar and flour because I know where I am headed.
I agree, you cannot cure Diabetes...you can keep type 2 under control for as long as possible with exercise and healthy eating. IF a type 2 diabetic goes back to eating more calories than needed then will have symptoms and need meds
. Unfortunately type 1 diabetics will always need insulin...even if they squeeze out every last drop of carbs/sugar from their diet they will need insulin, maybe not near as much as a diabetic who is not following a healthy diet.
Plus a lot of low carb diets are actually somewhat low in calories...so is the weight loss due to low calories ? You can look at your journal on MFP? Are you eating 2000+ calories and losing weight on low carb diet? Or are you actually eating less calories or at a deficit on your low carb diet?
A study on why Atkins works concluded that the proteins added to the diet where controlling hunger more than other foods and that being on Atkins for a period of time, people started naturally eating less calories. I am all for sugar/flour/ and less high saturated fat sources of protein but I can't call it a low carb diet because I eat apples, beans, nuts, etc, etc.
So in the end, I agree, calories in, burned or stored as fat...they matter.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
So the control group, didn't really lose weight and thus didn't see any benefits of weight loss because they were basically uncotrolled as to their diet and likely weren't reducing calories. No flaw in that study. As usually, you just cherry pick and probably don't even read the studies you post.
Also the LC dieters got told to eat double the same amounts of protein of the other group. Which is meaningless after all because, just as I suspected, they were "informed" about what they should eat. No one made sure they actually stuck to either the calories, macros nor exercise they were told to do.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
So the control group, didn't really lose weight and thus didn't see any benefits of weight loss because they were basically uncotrolled as to their diet and likely weren't reducing calories. No flaw in that study. As usually, you just cherry pick and probably don't even read the studies you post.
Also the LC dieters got told to eat double the same amounts of protein of the other group. Which is meaningless after all because, just as I suspected, they were "informed" about what they should eat. No one made sure they actually stuck to either the calories, macros nor exercise they were told to do.
My biggest issue is that it wasn't a double blind study and both researchers knew what group each participant belonged to and the control group was told that they would be participating in some other study from what it appears. So there was no incentive for the control group to actually stick to a diet since they were assuming they either thought they would lose weight in another study or perhaps weren't interested in losing weight. There was also no matched group on a higher carb diet to compare to the LC and CG. Yeah, very poor design from what I can see.0 -
Burn more calories in a day than you consume.0
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
So the control group, didn't really lose weight and thus didn't see any benefits of weight loss because they were basically uncotrolled as to their diet and likely weren't reducing calories. No flaw in that study. As usually, you just cherry pick and probably don't even read the studies you post.
Also the LC dieters got told to eat double the same amounts of protein of the other group. Which is meaningless after all because, just as I suspected, they were "informed" about what they should eat. No one made sure they actually stuck to either the calories, macros nor exercise they were told to do.
My biggest issue is that it wasn't a double blind study and both researchers knew what group each participant belonged to and the control group was told that they would be participating in some other study from what it appears. So there was no incentive for the control group to actually stick to a diet since they were assuming they either thought they would lose weight in another study or perhaps weren't interested in losing weight. There was also no matched group on a higher carb diet to compare to the LC and CG. Yeah, very poor design from what I can see.
Really, the Hall study from a while ago had probably the best design of its kind. A baseline maintenance diet, LC compared to baseline, other two identical, LF compared to baseline other two identical. Then switched the two groups around after a reset so each group did both. If only they could have kept it up for longer.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
So the control group, didn't really lose weight and thus didn't see any benefits of weight loss because they were basically uncotrolled as to their diet and likely weren't reducing calories. No flaw in that study. As usually, you just cherry pick and probably don't even read the studies you post.
Also the LC dieters got told to eat double the same amounts of protein of the other group. Which is meaningless after all because, just as I suspected, they were "informed" about what they should eat. No one made sure they actually stuck to either the calories, macros nor exercise they were told to do.
My biggest issue is that it wasn't a double blind study and both researchers knew what group each participant belonged to and the control group was told that they would be participating in some other study from what it appears. So there was no incentive for the control group to actually stick to a diet since they were assuming they either thought they would lose weight in another study or perhaps weren't interested in losing weight. There was also no matched group on a higher carb diet to compare to the LC and CG. Yeah, very poor design from what I can see.
And even if you take the results at face value, the effect size was not very big and there was a huge amount of overlap between the groups.0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »I love low carb diets. I feel better and not always hungry. My doctor told me that now they are discovering that low carb is the way to go. I don't remember which heart institute came out with a study but I think it was John Hopkins that fat and cholesterol is not the cause of plaque build up and heart disease. Sugar is.
You're right that dietary cholesterol is not the cause of plaque build up but it's not sugar either.
Saturated fats affect blood cholesterol levels when eaten in gross excess but the current research indicates that the main determining factors are genetics and body fat.
In other words, what you eat isn't nearly as important as who your parents are and how fat you are.0 -
I thought about going low carb. Then I asked myself. Can I really give up toast for the rest of my life? HELLS NO. Unless there is a medical reason I'm not trying to make my life harder by restricting what I eat. Calorie counting and weight loss are hard enough by themselves. If it fits in my calories, I'm eating it.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »allaboutthefood wrote: »
So whole natural foods are bad and dead flesh is good? I found this and it sounds like they are trying to find a new drug to help people with high cholesterol purge it out. If this article is for real? I will keep looking for this sugar causes cholesterol info. But I really don't think I will find it. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/johns_hopkins_scientists_alter_fat_metabolism_in_animals_to_prevent_most_common_type_of_heart_disease
Do vegans/vegetarians really think that calling meat "dead flesh" will scare omnivores into compliance? That's rather funny because the Afrikaans word for meat is the English equivalent of flesh
Same with Latin and, as a result, some Latin-based languages like Italian and Spanish (carne, Latin carnim -- also the derivation for carnivore).
Can't believe I initially failed to point out that the same word is the root for carnival too, given that it's Mardi Gras today.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »allaboutthefood wrote: »
So whole natural foods are bad and dead flesh is good? I found this and it sounds like they are trying to find a new drug to help people with high cholesterol purge it out. If this article is for real? I will keep looking for this sugar causes cholesterol info. But I really don't think I will find it. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/johns_hopkins_scientists_alter_fat_metabolism_in_animals_to_prevent_most_common_type_of_heart_disease
Do vegans/vegetarians really think that calling meat "dead flesh" will scare omnivores into compliance? That's rather funny because the Afrikaans word for meat is the English equivalent of flesh
Same with Latin and, as a result, some Latin-based languages like Italian and Spanish (carne -- also the derivation for carnivore).
I've also heard that there is an old English joke about animals being English when they are alive and French when they are dead because the words we use for meats in English tend to come from French.
Yeah, cow vs. beef, chicken vs. poultry, pig/swine vs. pork.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
So the control group, didn't really lose weight and thus didn't see any benefits of weight loss because they were basically uncotrolled as to their diet and likely weren't reducing calories. No flaw in that study. As usually, you just cherry pick and probably don't even read the studies you post.
Also the LC dieters got told to eat double the same amounts of protein of the other group. Which is meaningless after all because, just as I suspected, they were "informed" about what they should eat. No one made sure they actually stuck to either the calories, macros nor exercise they were told to do.
My biggest issue is that it wasn't a double blind study and both researchers knew what group each participant belonged to and the control group was told that they would be participating in some other study from what it appears. So there was no incentive for the control group to actually stick to a diet since they were assuming they either thought they would lose weight in another study or perhaps weren't interested in losing weight. There was also no matched group on a higher carb diet to compare to the LC and CG. Yeah, very poor design from what I can see.
Really, the Hall study from a while ago had probably the best design of its kind. A baseline maintenance diet, LC compared to baseline, other two identical, LF compared to baseline other two identical. Then switched the two groups around after a reset so each group did both. If only they could have kept it up for longer.
A/B design, as you site, is superior. That study was well designed and would be nice to see. Do you have a link?0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
So the control group, didn't really lose weight and thus didn't see any benefits of weight loss because they were basically uncotrolled as to their diet and likely weren't reducing calories. No flaw in that study. As usually, you just cherry pick and probably don't even read the studies you post.
Also the LC dieters got told to eat double the same amounts of protein of the other group. Which is meaningless after all because, just as I suspected, they were "informed" about what they should eat. No one made sure they actually stuck to either the calories, macros nor exercise they were told to do.
My biggest issue is that it wasn't a double blind study and both researchers knew what group each participant belonged to and the control group was told that they would be participating in some other study from what it appears. So there was no incentive for the control group to actually stick to a diet since they were assuming they either thought they would lose weight in another study or perhaps weren't interested in losing weight. There was also no matched group on a higher carb diet to compare to the LC and CG. Yeah, very poor design from what I can see.
Really, the Hall study from a while ago had probably the best design of its kind. A baseline maintenance diet, LC compared to baseline, other two identical, LF compared to baseline other two identical. Then switched the two groups around after a reset so each group did both. If only they could have kept it up for longer.
A/B design, as you site, is superior. That study was well designed and would be nice to see. Do you have a link?
Of course.
http://itarget.com.br/newclients/sbgg.com.br/informativos/14-09-15/1.pdf
And look, the low fat group had more of a reduction in resting blood glucose if I see this right.
The only downside was that it was only 6 days per diet. But there's not much you can do with ward study.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I have been on the LCHF/ketogenic diet for 2 months. I have lost 21lbs. My blood sugar levels are so level I no longer take meds for diabetes. So essentially this diet cured my diabetes. And my obesity:) I feel great! I am not hungry. As long as you eat enough fat you will not have to be hungry. The low calorie/low fat diets always fail because people are starving!
Losing weight improved your health markers not your specific way of hitting a calorie defecit
Although of course the evidence shows differential effects based on dietary composition and improvements in blood glucose way faster than can be explained by weight loss :
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.4496&rep=rep1&type=pdf using calorie deficit with 20% carbohydrate intervention vs 60% in controls. Obese Swedish diabetics. Group followed up in other papers to 44 months.
So the control group, didn't really lose weight and thus didn't see any benefits of weight loss because they were basically uncotrolled as to their diet and likely weren't reducing calories. No flaw in that study. As usually, you just cherry pick and probably don't even read the studies you post.
Also the LC dieters got told to eat double the same amounts of protein of the other group. Which is meaningless after all because, just as I suspected, they were "informed" about what they should eat. No one made sure they actually stuck to either the calories, macros nor exercise they were told to do.
My biggest issue is that it wasn't a double blind study and both researchers knew what group each participant belonged to and the control group was told that they would be participating in some other study from what it appears. So there was no incentive for the control group to actually stick to a diet since they were assuming they either thought they would lose weight in another study or perhaps weren't interested in losing weight. There was also no matched group on a higher carb diet to compare to the LC and CG. Yeah, very poor design from what I can see.
Really, the Hall study from a while ago had probably the best design of its kind. A baseline maintenance diet, LC compared to baseline, other two identical, LF compared to baseline other two identical. Then switched the two groups around after a reset so each group did both. If only they could have kept it up for longer.
A/B design, as you site, is superior. That study was well designed and would be nice to see. Do you have a link?
Of course.
http://itarget.com.br/newclients/sbgg.com.br/informativos/14-09-15/1.pdf
And look, the low fat group had more of a reduction in resting blood glucose if I see this right.
The only downside was that it was only 6 days per diet. But there's not much you can do with ward study.
Thanks, it wouldn't be surpsing to see no significant difference between groups on resting levels since it seems that viseral fat is the biggest problem and any reduction in that should result in the reduction of symptoms.0 -
I lose more on low carb but that's due to insulin resistance caused by medical conditions, if I could I'd be enjoying carbs much more, but its all about what suits you best.
0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »I love low carb diets. I feel better and not always hungry. My doctor told me that now they are discovering that low carb is the way to go. I don't remember which heart institute came out with a study but I think it was John Hopkins that fat and cholesterol is not the cause of plaque build up and heart disease. Sugar is.
I am not sure if sugar is the cause of CAD but there definitely appears to be a correlation between carbs and CAD
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1175.abstract
It appears inflammation may cause a large role in CAD. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/2/456S.full. For some people sugars or carbohydrates are inflammatory, mainly those with some IR; some with autoimmune diseases benefit too. For those people, reducing carbs and sugars is probably a healthy idea for reducing CAD risk.
ETA Was this the info you saw? http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2005/11_15c_05.html. Or this? http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/low_carb_higher_fat_diets_add_no_arterial_health_risks_to_obese_people_seeking_to_lose_weight0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »I love low carb diets. I feel better and not always hungry. My doctor told me that now they are discovering that low carb is the way to go. I don't remember which heart institute came out with a study but I think it was John Hopkins that fat and cholesterol is not the cause of plaque build up and heart disease. Sugar is.
I am not sure if sugar is the cause of CAD but there definitely appears to be a correlation between carbs and CAD
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1175.abstract
It appears inflammation may cause a large role in CAD. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/2/456S.full. For some people sugars or carbohydrates are inflammatory, mainly those with some IR; some with autoimmune diseases benefit too. For those people, reducing carbs and sugars is probably a healthy idea for reducing CAD risk.
ETA Was this the info you saw? http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2005/11_15c_05.html. Or this? http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/low_carb_higher_fat_diets_add_no_arterial_health_risks_to_obese_people_seeking_to_lose_weight
Not so definitely - always read the studies.
"Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progression when replacing saturated fat and monounsaturated fat but not when replacing total fat, polyunsaturated fat, or protein. The association was perhaps stronger among women with lower physical activity, who would be more susceptible to adverse effects of carbohydrates—particularly refined carbohydrate— on HDL cholesterol, triacylglycerols, glucose metabolism, insulin sensitivity, and weight gain.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions