Why do some people don’t eat much carbs when losing weight?
Replies
-
I do it because of my keto diet. But I was also told it was a good idea by my nutritionist.2
-
Plenty of people who have to lower their caloric intake find that fats and proteins leave them more full than carbs. Satiety is the key to maintaining your desired caloric intake.7
-
sytchequeen wrote: »Me personally? Because I chose the foods I wanted to restrict - calorific carbs like bread pastry pasta and potatoes - and swapped them out for lower calorie carbs like greens, turnips, broccoli, and cauliflower. That allows me to eat fewer calories, feel full, and enjoy what I eat.
The carbs all have 4 calories per gram. Potatoes same as turnips. One may have more fiber but it is negligible in the big picture. Pastry is more calorific because of the fat, at 9 calories per gram, that is added.8 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »QuilterInVA wrote: »Because it's a huge fad right now (along with intermittent fasting) and people mistakenly believe that weight loss is faster on a low-carb diet. Which has repeatedly been scientifically disproved.
Low carb/keto has been around for over 80 years. It is not a fad. It has science behind it and is useful in treating epilepsy. People need to know the facts before making judgements.
Yes it has been around since the 1920's to treat seizure disorders. Eating according to the keto diet to lose weight IS a fad because it is new-ish (last 10 years or so), it is not what the diet was designed to do, and people are jumping on the bandwagon without really understanding it.
I swear Atkins has been around a lot more then 10 years.
I remember my father putting us on the Atkins and South Beach diets when I was in high school. I can confirm that was definitely more than 10 years ago.
And that's all I'm going to say about that.
My first (and last) Keto diet was in 1995. Of course, it also involved phen-Fen, 500 cals a day and $50 a week to the diet doctor.
Those were the days!
The good old days when aggressive dieting caused you to lose weight from your body *and* your pocketbook.
(If only the pocketbook gained it back as quickly and certainly.)4 -
If anyone can eat the carbs, for heaven's sake eat them and enjoy. As a diabetic, I am very carb restricted. I have an excuse...what's yours?
6 -
I wouldn't call my diet low-carb. Probably lower carb than the traditional US diet at 30-40% carbs. I have a hard limit, imposed by my Diabetes coach/dietitian of 40% or 203g carbs/day.
But I'm not about to tell you that my weight loss was due to lower carbs. My weight loss was due to eating under 2250 calories most days and burning 2500-3000+ depending on the day.
If you do that over the course of 6 months, you will lose weight if you are eating kale or pork rinds.
I've had a bit of both.
Heck, I even had a Denny's grand slam this AM for Brunch. But it was part of a plan. Because, due to a Dr visit and potential blood draw, I hadn't eaten anything in the previous 15 hours. So I could consume 1/2 my daily calories in one sitting without much danger.
I won't eat again until after 7pm tonight, other than a small snack (banana) before I return to the gym this evening.
Low Carb/High Fat may be more satisfying, helping people eat less. But it's just a tool, not the work. The work is done by consuming fewer calories than you burn.
1 -
Because they hate them??? Lol I really love mine!0
-
We need carbs, but many people might be eating more than they need. So when they reduce them it will likely result in some weight loss, because they're taking in less calories from carbs than they previously were. Reducing carbs is beneficial for diabetes related issues, but for normal weight management in non-diabetics it's not a must, although some people do feel reducing carbs makes them more energetic or 'clearer' mentally.0
-
deannalfisher wrote: »LullabyLu2016 wrote: »The idea is that carbs are a source of calories that our bodies can use readily. Carbs are long or small sugars which our bodies break down in chemical processes and convert into energy-creating molecules. This process is much faster than with fats or proteins (both of which are also converted to energy-creating molecules).
Theoretically we can even become addicted to them. Have you ever gone off carbs, eat something with carbs, and then all you crave is carb-loaded foods (pasta, pizza, doughnuts, a sandwich, etc.)? Well the thought comes from the fact that our bodies use carbs so readily so we crave the "easy energy."
Then, once we've filled up, our bodies convert it into glycogen, and after a long time of eating too many carbs CALORIES, the body starts converting carbs CALORIES into fat.
Carbs are not the devil, but getting our calories from proteins and fats is generally deemed healthier.
(Tried my best to use my organic chemistry knowledge...)
FIFY...carbs aren't converted to fat when eaten in excess...calories are
Sorry, carbs ARE converted to body fat when eaten in excess.
Calories are a measurement that includes carbs, fat and protein.
10 -
deannalfisher wrote: »LullabyLu2016 wrote: »The idea is that carbs are a source of calories that our bodies can use readily. Carbs are long or small sugars which our bodies break down in chemical processes and convert into energy-creating molecules. This process is much faster than with fats or proteins (both of which are also converted to energy-creating molecules).
Theoretically we can even become addicted to them. Have you ever gone off carbs, eat something with carbs, and then all you crave is carb-loaded foods (pasta, pizza, doughnuts, a sandwich, etc.)? Well the thought comes from the fact that our bodies use carbs so readily so we crave the "easy energy."
Then, once we've filled up, our bodies convert it into glycogen, and after a long time of eating too many carbs CALORIES, the body starts converting carbs CALORIES into fat.
Carbs are not the devil, but getting our calories from proteins and fats is generally deemed healthier.
(Tried my best to use my organic chemistry knowledge...)
FIFY...carbs aren't converted to fat when eaten in excess...calories are
Sorry, carbs ARE converted to body fat when eaten in excess.
Calories are a measurement that includes carbs, fat and protein.
If eaten in a calorie surplus yes, same as protein and fat.10 -
deannalfisher wrote: »LullabyLu2016 wrote: »The idea is that carbs are a source of calories that our bodies can use readily. Carbs are long or small sugars which our bodies break down in chemical processes and convert into energy-creating molecules. This process is much faster than with fats or proteins (both of which are also converted to energy-creating molecules).
Theoretically we can even become addicted to them. Have you ever gone off carbs, eat something with carbs, and then all you crave is carb-loaded foods (pasta, pizza, doughnuts, a sandwich, etc.)? Well the thought comes from the fact that our bodies use carbs so readily so we crave the "easy energy."
Then, once we've filled up, our bodies convert it into glycogen, and after a long time of eating too many carbs CALORIES, the body starts converting carbs CALORIES into fat.
Carbs are not the devil, but getting our calories from proteins and fats is generally deemed healthier.
(Tried my best to use my organic chemistry knowledge...)
FIFY...carbs aren't converted to fat when eaten in excess...calories are
Sorry, carbs ARE converted to body fat when eaten in excess.
Calories are a measurement that includes carbs, fat and protein.
@suibhan6
Yes you will add body fat in a calorie surplus (whether that surplus is from from excess carbs or not) but conversion of carbs is highly unlikely - you would be preferentially storing dietary fat. Conversion is an inefficient process and your body strives for efficiency.
See my post back on page 2 about de novo lipogenesis. Read it right to the last paragraph quoted from Lyle McDonald.
8 -
Millicent3015 wrote: »We need carbs, but many people might be eating more than they need. So when they reduce them it will likely result in some weight loss, because they're taking in less calories from carbs than they previously were. Reducing carbs is beneficial for diabetes related issues, but for normal weight management in non-diabetics it's not a must, although some people do feel reducing carbs makes them more energetic or 'clearer' mentally.
Technically, we do not need carbs - the body can make all the glucose that it needs from protein and fat.3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »QuilterInVA wrote: »Because it's a huge fad right now (along with intermittent fasting) and people mistakenly believe that weight loss is faster on a low-carb diet. Which has repeatedly been scientifically disproved.
Low carb/keto has been around for over 80 years. It is not a fad. It has science behind it and is useful in treating epilepsy. People need to know the facts before making judgements.
Yes it has been around since the 1920's to treat seizure disorders. Eating according to the keto diet to lose weight IS a fad because it is new-ish (last 10 years or so), it is not what the diet was designed to do, and people are jumping on the bandwagon without really understanding it.
I swear Atkins has been around a lot more then 10 years.
I remember my father putting us on the Atkins and South Beach diets when I was in high school. I can confirm that was definitely more than 10 years ago.
And that's all I'm going to say about that.
My first (and last) Keto diet was in 1995. Of course, it also involved phen-Fen, 500 cals a day and $50 a week to the diet doctor.
Those were the days!
Ah, Phen-Fen, a real magic bullet!
Shame about that pesky heart valve thing...0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »QuilterInVA wrote: »Because it's a huge fad right now (along with intermittent fasting) and people mistakenly believe that weight loss is faster on a low-carb diet. Which has repeatedly been scientifically disproved.
Low carb/keto has been around for over 80 years. It is not a fad. It has science behind it and is useful in treating epilepsy. People need to know the facts before making judgements.
Yes it has been around since the 1920's to treat seizure disorders. Eating according to the keto diet to lose weight IS a fad because it is new-ish (last 10 years or so), it is not what the diet was designed to do, and people are jumping on the bandwagon without really understanding it.
I swear Atkins has been around a lot more then 10 years.
I remember my father putting us on the Atkins and South Beach diets when I was in high school. I can confirm that was definitely more than 10 years ago.
And that's all I'm going to say about that.
My first (and last) Keto diet was in 1995. Of course, it also involved phen-Fen, 500 cals a day and $50 a week to the diet doctor.
Those were the days!
Ah, Phen-Fen, a real magic bullet!
Shame about that pesky heart valve thing...
Yeah, luckily I didn’t take much of the Fen because it was expensive. I think I only did it for about 2 months - it was because my younger sister was getting married that I went to such an extreme. Of course, after I hit my low weight (which is my current goal weight), I weighed that for exactly 1 day before starting to gain again.2 -
Because it helps me stop having cravings for all sorts of things by keeping my blood sugar low. I am also more in tune with my hunger levels and don't tend to overeat eating keto. And intermittent fasting comes naturally after the starting phase as my hunger decreases dramatically. It makes it then really easy to follow the diet because I can eat when I'm hungry and stop when I should, just the way I'm supposed to be able to do. When I eat carbs it's really hard for myself to overcome my cravings for highly caloric foods and low nutrients density foods as well.
It's different for everyone but that's why I like it!5 -
sytchequeen wrote: »Me personally? Because I chose the foods I wanted to restrict - calorific carbs like bread pastry pasta and potatoes - and swapped them out for lower calorie carbs like greens, turnips, broccoli, and cauliflower. That allows me to eat fewer calories, feel full, and enjoy what I eat.
The carbs all have 4 calories per gram. Potatoes same as turnips. One may have more fiber but it is negligible in the big picture. Pastry is more calorific because of the fat, at 9 calories per gram, that is added.
I understand the point you make, however my choice of mashed cauliflower on my plate (100g @ 38 cal) versus mashed potato (100g @ 77 cal) is still valid
6 -
Millicent3015 wrote: »We need carbs, but many people might be eating more than they need. So when they reduce them it will likely result in some weight loss, because they're taking in less calories from carbs than they previously were. Reducing carbs is beneficial for diabetes related issues, but for normal weight management in non-diabetics it's not a must, although some people do feel reducing carbs makes them more energetic or 'clearer' mentally.
Technically, we do not need carbs - the body can make all the glucose that it needs from protein and fat.
I'd say technically you MAY not need carbs, depending on what you do.
I know that if I'm on a hours long bike ride, if I don't refuel with some carbs during the ride, I'm going to bonk at some point and not perform as well. If I need a burst of energy to sprint or climb a hill, and I've depleted my glycogen stores, I'm not able to provide that energy. The anaerobic metabolic mechanism depends on glycogen (IIRC) when it cannot get enough oxygen to create the ATP needed by the muscles during the effort.
So if you lift to your maximums, or sprint, or climb, or any short term efforts that require you to use those anaerobic pathways, if you are short of glycogen, you will not be able to perform.
A fueling strategy that replenishes those stores by consuming say 100-300 calories in carbs/hour is usually sufficient to keep glycogen in place when needed.
So I'm not sure I'd say no one needs carbs. There are circumstances where you cannot manufacture glycogen fast enough or because available oxygen is being used for other purposes in the body at the moment.5 -
Millicent3015 wrote: »We need carbs, but many people might be eating more than they need. So when they reduce them it will likely result in some weight loss, because they're taking in less calories from carbs than they previously were. Reducing carbs is beneficial for diabetes related issues, but for normal weight management in non-diabetics it's not a must, although some people do feel reducing carbs makes them more energetic or 'clearer' mentally.
Technically, we do not need carbs - the body can make all the glucose that it needs from protein and fat.
You may be right. Bill Tilden won Wimbledon and he only ate steak and ice cream, apparently. He did die young, mind you. But the body needs fibre, too, and that comes from complex carbohydrates. Plus a carb free diet wouldn't be very interesting, unless you were Bill Tilden, or a hyena or something.1 -
Millicent3015 wrote: »Millicent3015 wrote: »We need carbs, but many people might be eating more than they need. So when they reduce them it will likely result in some weight loss, because they're taking in less calories from carbs than they previously were. Reducing carbs is beneficial for diabetes related issues, but for normal weight management in non-diabetics it's not a must, although some people do feel reducing carbs makes them more energetic or 'clearer' mentally.
Technically, we do not need carbs - the body can make all the glucose that it needs from protein and fat.
You may be right. Bill Tilden won Wimbledon and he only ate steak and ice cream, apparently. He did die young, mind you. But the body needs fibre, too, and that comes from complex carbohydrates. Plus a carb free diet wouldn't be very interesting, unless you were Bill Tilden, or a hyena or something.
Ice cream has carbohydrates.6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Millicent3015 wrote: »We need carbs, but many people might be eating more than they need. So when they reduce them it will likely result in some weight loss, because they're taking in less calories from carbs than they previously were. Reducing carbs is beneficial for diabetes related issues, but for normal weight management in non-diabetics it's not a must, although some people do feel reducing carbs makes them more energetic or 'clearer' mentally.
Technically, we do not need carbs - the body can make all the glucose that it needs from protein and fat.
I'd say technically you MAY not need carbs, depending on what you do.
I know that if I'm on a hours long bike ride, if I don't refuel with some carbs during the ride, I'm going to bonk at some point and not perform as well. If I need a burst of energy to sprint or climb a hill, and I've depleted my glycogen stores, I'm not able to provide that energy. The anaerobic metabolic mechanism depends on glycogen (IIRC) when it cannot get enough oxygen to create the ATP needed by the muscles during the effort.
So if you lift to your maximums, or sprint, or climb, or any short term efforts that require you to use those anaerobic pathways, if you are short of glycogen, you will not be able to perform.
A fueling strategy that replenishes those stores by consuming say 100-300 calories in carbs/hour is usually sufficient to keep glycogen in place when needed.
So I'm not sure I'd say no one needs carbs. There are circumstances where you cannot manufacture glycogen fast enough or because available oxygen is being used for other purposes in the body at the moment.
There are several keto based ultramarathoners. What you say is true initially but the body can adapt to ketogenesis. In fact, being keto adapted can be a viable strategy for sports like endurance running exactly because it doesn't rely on glycogen stores so there is no bonking - as long as the body has any fat stores it can keep fueling. On the other hand, it appears to be a disadvantage for sports which require quick bursts of energy, because ketogenesis is slower.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Millicent3015 wrote: »We need carbs, but many people might be eating more than they need. So when they reduce them it will likely result in some weight loss, because they're taking in less calories from carbs than they previously were. Reducing carbs is beneficial for diabetes related issues, but for normal weight management in non-diabetics it's not a must, although some people do feel reducing carbs makes them more energetic or 'clearer' mentally.
Technically, we do not need carbs - the body can make all the glucose that it needs from protein and fat.
I'd say technically you MAY not need carbs, depending on what you do.
I know that if I'm on a hours long bike ride, if I don't refuel with some carbs during the ride, I'm going to bonk at some point and not perform as well. If I need a burst of energy to sprint or climb a hill, and I've depleted my glycogen stores, I'm not able to provide that energy. The anaerobic metabolic mechanism depends on glycogen (IIRC) when it cannot get enough oxygen to create the ATP needed by the muscles during the effort.
So if you lift to your maximums, or sprint, or climb, or any short term efforts that require you to use those anaerobic pathways, if you are short of glycogen, you will not be able to perform.
A fueling strategy that replenishes those stores by consuming say 100-300 calories in carbs/hour is usually sufficient to keep glycogen in place when needed.
So I'm not sure I'd say no one needs carbs. There are circumstances where you cannot manufacture glycogen fast enough or because available oxygen is being used for other purposes in the body at the moment.
There are several keto based ultramarathoners. What you say is true initially but the body can adapt to ketogenesis. In fact, being keto adapted can be a viable strategy for sports like endurance running exactly because it doesn't rely on glycogen stores so there is no bonking - as long as the body has any fat stores it can keep fueling. On the other hand, it appears to be a disadvantage for sports which require quick bursts of energy, because ketogenesis is slower.
And even if they become adapted, the vast majority will still perform better with carbs. Its also why many keto athletes carb up pre race.5 -
rheddmobile wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »Millicent3015 wrote: »We need carbs, but many people might be eating more than they need. So when they reduce them it will likely result in some weight loss, because they're taking in less calories from carbs than they previously were. Reducing carbs is beneficial for diabetes related issues, but for normal weight management in non-diabetics it's not a must, although some people do feel reducing carbs makes them more energetic or 'clearer' mentally.
Technically, we do not need carbs - the body can make all the glucose that it needs from protein and fat.
I'd say technically you MAY not need carbs, depending on what you do.
I know that if I'm on a hours long bike ride, if I don't refuel with some carbs during the ride, I'm going to bonk at some point and not perform as well. If I need a burst of energy to sprint or climb a hill, and I've depleted my glycogen stores, I'm not able to provide that energy. The anaerobic metabolic mechanism depends on glycogen (IIRC) when it cannot get enough oxygen to create the ATP needed by the muscles during the effort.
So if you lift to your maximums, or sprint, or climb, or any short term efforts that require you to use those anaerobic pathways, if you are short of glycogen, you will not be able to perform.
A fueling strategy that replenishes those stores by consuming say 100-300 calories in carbs/hour is usually sufficient to keep glycogen in place when needed.
So I'm not sure I'd say no one needs carbs. There are circumstances where you cannot manufacture glycogen fast enough or because available oxygen is being used for other purposes in the body at the moment.
There are several keto based ultramarathoners. What you say is true initially but the body can adapt to ketogenesis. In fact, being keto adapted can be a viable strategy for sports like endurance running exactly because it doesn't rely on glycogen stores so there is no bonking - as long as the body has any fat stores it can keep fueling. On the other hand, it appears to be a disadvantage for sports which require quick bursts of energy, because ketogenesis is slower.
Probably depends on the athlete. I believe the 1983 Phinney study with cyclists had mixed results. While their aerobic performance did not change after 4 weeks on a zero carb diet, in sprints, two cyclists performed better, the two most fat-adapted performed worse, and one stayed statistically the same.
So YMMV.0 -
I lowered carbs because it was better for my health and my doctor instructed me to. I stay with it because it keeps my BG steadier for better energy, it improved my autoimmune and arthritis symptoms, and it makes weight management much easier for me.
Carbs taste good but they're not contributed positively to my health and well being. Happily, I don't need to consume any minimum amount.QuilterInVA wrote: »Because it's a huge fad right now (along with intermittent fasting) and people mistakenly believe that weight loss is faster on a low-carb diet. Which has repeatedly been scientifically disproved.
Low carb/keto has been around for over 80 years. It is not a fad. It has science behind it and is useful in treating epilepsy. People need to know the facts before making judgements.
Yes it has been around since the 1920's to treat seizure disorders. Eating according to the keto diet to lose weight IS a fad because it is new-ish (last 10 years or so), it is not what the diet was designed to do, and people are jumping on the bandwagon without really understanding it.
Low carb is actually the topic of first diet book ever written for the public in the Western world. A Letter on Corpulence was written by Banting in the 1860s. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1550-8528.1993.tb00605.x That would make "everything in moderation" the newer way to achieve CI<CO.0 -
I don't think that it's a fad. Atkins' book came out in 1972, I remember it being popular in the 80's and 90's. French bakers were complaining about low carb diets in the 90's.1
-
LumberJacck wrote: »I don't think that it's a fad. Atkins' book came out in 1972, I remember it being popular in the 80's and 90's. French bakers were complaining about low carb diets in the 90's.
Low carb is not a fad, keto (aka ultra low carb) is.1 -
MagnumOpus1 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »MagnumOpus1 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »You have to cut back somewhere - sugar, starches and grains are low hanging fruit.
Hmm. Not if your workout is physically demanding. But yeah, no/light exercise doesn't require much carbs.
Maybe if you're an elite athlete but whether you eat carbs or not your glycogen stores aren't empty. Eat whatever diet you prefer, train and you'll adjust and progress - humans are remarkably adaptive.
We are adaptable but only a handful of people can train hard 4 times a week with cardio included eating low carbs. You won't last long then eventually regress. But doing something lighter, yes.
And how many people train hard 4X a week? Pretty small part of the population.0 -
For me, it reduces my cravings and helps with saiety.1
-
I don't eat processed carbs, I eat what makes my mouth and tummy happy. Most carbs just don't do that for me, The way I eat, I can sustain forever. I don't NOT have carbs if I am feeling it, I'll have 1/2 a baked potato with my steak and half plate of veggies. I just try to make smarter choices. It is working for me.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions