What's the deal with low carb diets?

Low carb isn't better or magic or whatever some people say. But low carb, for some people (not all) makes them feel fuller for the same amount of calories. So it makes it easier for them to stick to their calorie goal.

Also, low carb makes you lose water weight (you need water to process carbs) which gives the impression of faster weight loss, especially in the beginning, but you don't lose bodyfat any faster.

Calories are what matter for weight loss, but how you eat within your calorie goal really is up to you. I can only encourage you to experiment and see what way of eating you enjoy, satiates you AND you can keep up long-term (the goal is to lose weight and keep it off long-term).

Edited to add: I lost 70+lbs eating high carb (on average 40 to 50% carbs) including bread and had zero issues losing weight

azuki84 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with carbs. But a lot of carbs in your typical grocery store that are easily accessible tend to be processed, and some people do not seem to understand how to discern between wholesome unprocessed carbs (steel cut oats, vegetables, etc) vs your typical white bread or cookies.

Carbs whether processed or not are absorbed by the body the same way. While nutritional value can differ, carb counts for processed foods aren't different because they are processed versus say steel cut oats. That's just misinformation that the "natural" crowd creates to get people thinking that they are eating "healthier".


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

e93marie wrote: »

I don't understand why carbs would be "bad". Anything in excess is bad but I know some people that swear by carb cutting and low carb diets. A certain someone close to me keeps inquiring as to why I'm not cutting carbs instead of calories.

⚫ Is it healthier?

⚫ Is weight loss faster?

⚫ Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted?

⚫ How is it better than regular calorie counting?

⚫ What do carbs have to do with fat?

Everyone is different in terms of how their body reacts to the way they eat. I've always done better on a LCHF (low carbohydrate high fat) WOE (way of eating) and my doctor recommended that WOE based on my bloodwork as well.

Is it healthier? This is always up for debate but in terms of cutting out sugar, grains, and other processed foods it helps me. Although you can just cut out the junk food and high sugar foods without going LCHF by eating a whole food approach. Cutting out the junk is always a step in the right direction. I have specific issues in regards to certain foods so LCHF is a better healthier option for me but that may not be the case for others.

Is weight loss faster? If you go really low carb/keto you will lose water weight in the first couple weeks. After that it will slow and you will retain more water if you go back to eating high carb. Overtime I've lost more weight on LCHF because it satiates my appetite and I like the foods. It may not be as easy for someone who doesn't like what they are eating or they feel deprived in some way. It all depends on the individual and weight loss takes time if you want to do it in a healthy way. Some people get discouraged in the long term because weight loss isn't linear but that can happen whether you are LCHF or not.

Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted? I'm not an expert but I would say no. In my opinion calorie burn is more about TDEE. If you are strict keto you can get your body to a state where it burns more fat but it is still dependent on activity and the amount of calories you consume. Overtime there could be some physiological changes that occur if you reverse metabolic syndrome to where your body processes carbs more efficiently without storing them as fat but I'm not sure if this equates to burning more without a change in activity. I would do some specific internet searches on this question and compile information from multiple sources.

How is it better than regular calorie counting? I don't know if it's better. I still track my foods on MFP. It depends on how you want to approach your WOE. Fat, protein, and carbs from leafy greens are more satiating for me so I rarely exceed my calorie limits. I eat when I am hungry and don't over eat which is a big problem for me otherwise.

What do carbs have to do with fat? The Carb Addiction Doc on YouTube has some good videos that explain this better than I can. He trends to full carnivore which I don't do but he's given me some good insight on my eating behaviors in the past and reasons why I am in the state I am in today. He also talks about the physiological processes in terms of carbs and fat.

When people talk about cutting carbs it usually means cutting out all the carb heavy junk foods and replacing them with healthier options.

You have to do what works for you though. Mentally and physically my wife doesn't thrive on LCHF and I do. So there really is no "one size fits all" approach to changing the way you eat. A person just needs to evaluate for themselves what is sustainable based on what their body and mind needs. As always consult a doctor or nutritionist so you have a good base line on what will work for you based on your current state of health and medications.

⚫ Is it healthier?
You can have a healthy overall diet low in carbs or high in carbs. Tell your certain someone to look into the diets from the Blue Zones where people are typically healthy and long lived and eat very high carb.

⚫ Is weight loss faster?
Not when calories and protein are equal.
People like your certain someone may get confused by an initial drop in water weight when carbs are suddenly dropped. But that's not extra fat loss.

⚫ Does the body burn more calories when carbs are subtracted?
It doesn't. If it negatively affects your energy levels you may burn less in daily activity and exercise.

⚫ How is it better than regular calorie counting?
It isn't - it's missing the point if someone is looking to diet for weight loss because it's calories that determine which way your weight goes. It may be better for some people that don't tolerate carbs well or who simply find it easier to cut calories by cutting carbs. Like all diets really - suits some people, doesn't suit others, has pros but has cons.

⚫ What do carbs have to do with fat?
Assuming you mean body fat very little really. It's someone's total calories that determine if they have extra energy to be stored as body fat or a deficit of energy that means they will have a net loss of body fat over time. Fun fact is that carbs are very, very rarely converted to fat as that conversion process is inefficient - not that it actually matters where your energy surplus comes from.


BTW - carbs are far more than just starchy carbs like bread and potatoes. Fruits, veggies, grains as well as simple sugars, it's a huge and varied food group.

ciaoder wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

I think only if one stands back pretty far, and squints.

Most GI numbers are for single foods, when most of us eat combinations of foods in a snack/meal, so the net GI will differ.

Personally, I find many foods that folks often call "hyper palatable" to be unpleasant and undesirable, haven't eaten very much of them for decades...

Your point is taken, Ann. Still, there's an entire part of our world that "Runs on Dunkin'"... frozen coffee drink (desserts) and Rockstar Energy and feeding their kids sugared up cereal bars in the morning and nothing but nuggets and fries for dinner. For everyone like you, that is put off by the thought of eating that way, there are two that exist on the junk. It's cheap and fast and profitable. It's not going anywhere, they're just going to make it "keto approved".

I get that. I do.

I get frustrated here, though, by conversations that stay way up in the clouds of abstraction, using terms like "hyper palatable", "highly processed", "junk food", "eating clean", "whole foods", "carbs" (as a shorthand for things that - as Lemur says - are not just carbs, sometimes not even mostly carbs), and more.

Whenever we dig into those terms, it usually ends up that people aren't all referring to the same foods when they use the terms, or the terms themselves don't hold up as accurate. It's a conversation with people talking past each other, but often not realizing it. It aggravates the popularized "diet industry" mythologies that lead people to post here asking things like whether it will "ruin their weight loss" if they have one donut on Sunday, eat a fast-food meal, or drink a soda every day (maybe even a zero-calorie one).

In my opinion, what matters most is that people get reasonable overall nutrition at appropriate calories, when averaging the nutrition/calories over a day or few. It matters much less what each individual-food source of that nutrition and those calorie are (especially if the individual finds their personal combination of foods tasty and sating, so they're able to stick with it long enough to reach a healthy weight and good health markers).

IMO, often these abstract terms, like "junk food" or "eating clean" are a distraction from the idea that what matters most is overall nutrition and overall calories. They can also distract from sensible thinking about the individuality of satiation and happiness with one's eating, and how those things relate to long term compliance with calorie and nutrition goals. They lead people off in the "will donuts ruin me" direction.

A fast food burger has protein, fat, some micronutrients. So does a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. Neither are the most nutrient dense foods in the world, and they may be high calorie (depends on serving size), but eating one of those can still contribute some nutrition to the day. It matters (lots) what the rest of the day looks like: The totality of the eating matters, not the fact that a person ate "junk food" or "highly processed carbs" at some point during the day.

Protein powder - at least some types - is arguably a "highly processed food". Protein powder can be as highly processed - maybe more highly processed - than potato chips/crisps. Is it therefore bad? I don't think there's anything wrong with using protein powder, and it's much more nutrient-dense than typical chips/crisps, but the abstractions about foods can be out of whack, a distraction from the main point, nutrition, calories, sustainability for the individual.

The thing you previously wrote (and didn't requote when you replied to me) was

ciaoder wrote: »

The questions about highly processed carbs are relevant when discussing glycemic index numbers or excess consumption of hyper palatable foods.

That's very, very abstract. I understand what you're saying, but . . . does it shed light on how people should eat for weight management and health, or just add fuel to the "demon foods" fires? I think you're a knowledgeable person, and have a lot of knowledge to offer here. I also think it's more helpful to keep things out of the clouds of abstraction, because clouds obscure things. 🤷‍♀️

Bridgie3 wrote: »

Carbs are bad if they make you insulin resistant. Insulin resistance is very bad.

If your relationship with insulin is working, you have no reason to avoid carbs. Talk to your doctor if you would like more information.

But EXCESS carbs are not the biggest contributors to insulin resistance - the two biggest contributors to insulin resistance are:

"Acquired causes of insulin resistance
Acquired causes, meaning you’re not born with the cause, of insulin resistance include:

Excess body fat: Scientists believe obesity, especially excess fat in your belly and around your organs (visceral fat), is a primary cause of insulin resistance. A waist measurement of 40 inches or more for men and people assigned male at birth and 35 inches or more for women and people assigned female at birth is linked to insulin resistance. Studies have shown that belly fat makes hormones and other substances that can contribute to long-term inflammation in your body. This inflammation may play a role in insulin resistance
Physical inactivity: Physical activity makes your body more sensitive to insulin and builds muscle that can absorb blood glucose. A lack of physical activity can have opposite effects and cause insulin resistance. In addition, a lack of physical activity and a sedentary lifestyle are associated with weight gain, which can also contribute to insulin resistance."

from the following article:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22206-insulin-resistance

Eating carbs in a reasonable diet DOES NOT cause insulin resistance.

Potatoes aren't "basically no nutrition," and they are pretty low cal per volume compared to plenty of other starchy carbs (and of course fat): 70 cal for 100 g of red potatoes, flesh and skin.

Rice and pasta (like potatoes) are also not normally eaten on their own, but as a vehicle to add to the overall satiating effect/satisfying effect (for many of us) of a total meal that typically (for me, anyway) includes plenty of protein, lots of veg, and some fat. So -- as Ann pointed out a ways back -- this idea of spikes/fast digestion (or GI in particular) is basically mooted as they are eaten with other foods that slow them down.

As for hunger, as always that is personal, but I don't feel hungrier sooner after a meal including rice, potatoes, or pasta, assuming the meal as a whole is not unbalanced (I think there's a lot more to hunger anyway).

On diabetes, the post above yours is a good one. No, including potatoes in your diet doesn't cause diabetes.

I agree that a semi-healthy diet that promotes weight loss is generally going to reduce diabetes risk.

As for "all that mostly pertains to the simple carbs" -- you do realized that the foods you were discussing, potatoes, pasta, and rice, are all complex carbs? Not that there's anything inherently wrong with simple carbs -- I quite like fruit and consider it a good part of a healthy diet.

You don't have to "lean toward plant-based" to enjoy starchy carbs (which are "complex" by definition).

Beans, whole grains, legumes, pseudo-grains (quinoa, amaranth), nuts, all have carbs and can be a very healthy part of a weight loss diet.

Something I agree with!

Minimally processed whole grains, legumes, etc have a fairly low glycemic index (i.e. don't produce sugar or insulin spikes), and should not be a problem unless you are seriously diabetic).

See above re GI.

ciaoder wrote: »

I apologize. I just don't imagine that people are eating as healthy as many of you suppose and so my baseline understanding of average American diet is probably off.

I don't think you need to apologize, personally - obviously, I don't speak for the crowd.

I don't necessarily think your baseline understanding of the average American diet is off, either - honestly, I have no idea. I see statistics about things like obesity or sugar consumption, but I don't really know how to translate that into a picture of what an average individual life looks like, vs. the outer ends of the bell curve. My view is biased, I'm sure, by tending to have friends who tend to be more like me, less like . . . something else. (I suspect most people are similarly biased by their personal social context.)

My marketing classes back in the day told me that it tends to be that 20% of the people are going to use 80% of your company's product category, and (while no one believes those are the exact percents), I think that's generally true.

Consequently, I assume there are a minority of people who eat almost entirely whatever we mean by the "bad" kinds of "highly processed" "junk" "fast food". I also assume there are a minority who eat relatively little of that stuff (I think I'm one, and was one when obese). Finally, I think there's probably a larger middle group who eat some of it sometimes, maybe multiple times a week, even some daily, but also eat a reasonable fraction of meat and fish and vegetables and grains and such during a typical week.

People who eat almost entirely low nutrient-dense and high calorie-dense foods, few or no veggies and fruits (and those they do eat heavily sugared) . . . that's not a good thing: They'd likely be better off health-wise eating differently.

The group in the middle, though - majority? good-sized minority? I don't know - can potentially be getting semi-adequate nutrition, maybe too many calories; or good nutrition and way too many calories; or some variation . . . or even be doing OK on both nutrition and calories, though the obesity rates suggest that's rare. (On the nutritional front, it seems like serious under-nutrition or deficiencies are mostly reasonably rare in the US, too - sub-optimality probably more common.)

That middle group, which is a good sized group, I suspect, doesn't necessarily need to take every morsel of "bad" "highly processed" "junk" "fast food" out of their eating entirely. If they really enjoy those "hyperpalatable" things, they may find it easier to stick with reasonable calories and decent-ish nutrition long enough to manage their weight, if they don't try to give all those foods up entirely forever. Just a guess, though.

It's not uncommon here to see people start with calorie counting thinking they can keep eating exactly the same foods as before, including in some cases a lot of less nutrient-dense, high calorie, non-sating foods, just less of them, and lose weight. Which they can, technically.

Pretty quickly, the smart ones tend to discover that they're less hungry if they start to mix in some more nutrient-dense, filling foods. Their eating evolves. Not everyone sticks with it that long, of course. But I think those who do are increasing their long-term success odds, figuring out what mix of things they personally need to feel full, get enough treats not to feel deprived or feel socially isolated in their social context, keep their energy level up, improve health markers, etc. That's a good thing.

By contrast, another common scenario here is the "revolutionize my whole way of eating and never eat the 'bad' foods I like ever again" route. That often doesn't end well, and may end quickly: If weight loss happens, do they make it all the way to a healthy weight? If they make it to a healthy weight, do they stay there? How often? Or does life get complicated, and they "go back to normal"? Decide that since they ate that "bad" food or meal or few, they've blown it, might as well give up?

Here, on MFP, we have an opportunity to be clear and specific about what it might mean to have a "healthy diet" (with "diet" as a noun, there). People arrive here with incorrect ideas from popular culture (like that "potatoes are a simple carb with no nutritional value" thing) and a tendency to think in abstractions or generalities (like "junk food" vs. "superfood"). I'm going to keep advocating hitting one's calorie goal, tweaking details to feel full, then to get better nutrition, and so forth . . . while eating foods that that specific person enjoys eating (or at least tolerates well), that are practical and affordable for them. In that context, it doesn't matter if they have fries for lunch three times a week, have a donut on Sunday, etc., if the overall way of eating is reasonable.

Going back to the OP: If low carb gets a person to reasonable calories, feeling full, eating in a practical and enjoyable way, getting adequate nutrition, reaching and staying at a heathy weight and good health markers, I'm all for it . . . for them. Ditto for IF, paleo, Bright Line Eating, Whole 30 forever not just 30 days, whole foods plant based, or any other modality that can accommodate good health, including eating some junk food sometimes in a context of overall reasonable calories and nutrition.

/End rant.