Low Carbs? Customized Nurtional Goals

I customized my nutrional goals to be 25% carbs, 45% protein, and 30% fat. What do you guys think about the low carb idea? I heard your body burns carbs before fat, so this might help me loose fat!

Repeated metabolic ward studies have shown no metabolic advantage to low carb diets (means you don't lose more fat on a low carb vs mixed diet)

It is mighty funny you keep saying that, but this study from 2004 is saying otherwise............check out the bolded areas.........

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/

Over the course of the study, subjects consumed an extra 25,000 kcal that should have added up to about a 7 pounds weight gain; it did not. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant, so the researchers knew exactly what they ate, and one could not argue that diets were not palatable. Finally, a recent randomised, balanced, two diet study compared effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted ketogenic and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight/obese men (n = 15) and women (n = 13) [20]. Despite significantly greater calorie intake (1855 vs. 1562 kcal/day), both between and within group comparison revealed a distinct advantage of a ketogenic diet over a low-fat diet for weight loss/fat loss for men. In fact, 5 men showed more than 10 pounds difference in weight loss. Majority of women also responded more favourable to the ketogenic diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. Furthermore, the individual responses revealed that three men and four women who did the ketogenic diet first, regained body mass and fat mass after the switch to the low-fat, whereas no subjects regained weight or fat mass after switching to the ketogenic diet.

I customized my nutrional goals to be 25% carbs, 45% protein, and 30% fat. What do you guys think about the low carb idea? I heard your body burns carbs before fat, so this might help me loose fat!

Hi there.

Personally, my ratios are similar (may vary a bit day by day but averages out) to 10% carbs / 30% protein / 60% fat.

You will have to play around and see what works for you.

This article says we DO need carbs for energy. http://www.swisse.com/health-hub/health-news/food-and-nutrition/carbohydrates-do-we-really-need-them

I customized my nutrional goals to be 25% carbs, 45% protein, and 30% fat. What do you guys think about the low carb idea? I heard your body burns carbs before fat, so this might help me loose fat!

Repeated metabolic ward studies have shown no metabolic advantage to low carb diets (means you don't lose more fat on a low carb vs mixed diet)

This was a controlled study, no one prepped their own food or anything of the such. Read the WHOLE article........

And then it goes on to say..............

It is increasingly clear that the idea that "a calorie is a calorie" is misleading. The calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption. Different diets (e.g., high-protein/low-carbohydrate vs. low-protein/high-carbohydrate) lead to different biochemical pathways (due to the hormonal and enzymatic changes) that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics [6]. Unless one measures heat and the biomolecules synthesized using ATP, it is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage. Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start [31]." However, there will be metabolic accommodations and one cannot assume that the metabolic advantage (i.e., greater weight loss compared to isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet) will stay the same over a long term. The ideal weight loss diet, if it even exists, remains to be determined, but a high-carbohydrate/low-protein diet may be unsatisfactory for many obese individuals.

It is mighty funny you keep saying that, but this study from 2004 is saying otherwise............check out the bolded areas.........

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/

Over the course of the study, subjects consumed an extra 25,000 kcal that should have added up to about a 7 pounds weight gain; it did not. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant, so the researchers knew exactly what they ate, and one could not argue that diets were not palatable. Finally, a recent randomised, balanced, two diet study compared effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted ketogenic and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight/obese men (n = 15) and women (n = 13) [20]. Despite significantly greater calorie intake (1855 vs. 1562 kcal/day), both between and within group comparison revealed a distinct advantage of a ketogenic diet over a low-fat diet for weight loss/fat loss for men. In fact, 5 men showed more than 10 pounds difference in weight loss. Majority of women also responded more favourable to the ketogenic diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. Furthermore, the individual responses revealed that three men and four women who did the ketogenic diet first, regained body mass and fat mass after the switch to the low-fat, whereas no subjects regained weight or fat mass after switching to the ketogenic diet.

You are not very good with reading comprehension, the bolded section refers to this study, which is not a controlled metabolic ward study and relies on self reported data

Greene P, Willett W, et al. Pilot 12-week feeding weight loss comparison: low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) dietsObes Res. 2003;11:A23.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n11s/full/oby2004278a.html

This article says we DO need carbs for energy. http://www.swisse.com/health-hub/health-news/food-and-nutrition/carbohydrates-do-we-really-need-them

Carbohydrates are in no way necessary. Not in the least.

Many believe that carbohydrates are necessary to maintain our energy levels, but the body can utilize fatty acids ("good" dietary fats such as butter, coconut oil, lard, and naturally occurring animal fats) for energy, as well as convert protein into glucose on an as-needed basis. "The mitochondria* in our cells, the organelles* that generate energy for us, are specifically designed to use fat for energy," said Dr. Allan. "Furthermore, many organs prefer fat as an energy source--not glucose," he concluded. Indeed, the heart prefers naturally saturated fatty acids for its energy needs, not glucose (30).

*mitochondria and organelles are specialized parts of a cell that carry out some specific functions.

58% of protein and 10% of fat can be changed into glucose inside the body.

Another myth is that one needs to eat lots of fruits and vegetables to get enough vitamins and minerals each day. But Dr. Allan counters that, "While we do get some vitamins and minerals from plant foods, we can get more of them from animal foods. Even more importantly, there are many vitamins and cofactors that we only get from animal foods." Dr. Allan also commented that the public are misled into thinking that animal foods do not provide many nutrients because food-nutrient tables typically exclude animal foods from their lists, listing only plant foods instead. The reality is, however, that animal foods contain higher levels of almost every nutrient. Vitamins like A and D (and B12) are only found in animal foods and nutritional factors like carnitine and CoQ10 are predominantly found in animal foods as well.

You can get carbs from anything & everything. So get your carbs from veggies instead of bread and pasta and that should def help.

This article says we DO need carbs for energy. http://www.swisse.com/health-hub/health-news/food-and-nutrition/carbohydrates-do-we-really-need-them

Carbohydrates are not necessary building blocks of other molecules, and the body can obtain all its energy from protein and fats.[11][12] The brain and neurons generally cannot burn fat for energy, but use glucose or ketones. Humans can synthesize some glucose (in a set of processes known as gluconeogenesis) from specific amino acids, from the glycerol backbone in triglycerides and in some cases from fatty acids. Carbohydrate and protein contain 4 kilocalories per gram, while fats contain 9 kilocalories per gram. In the case of protein, this is somewhat misleading as only some amino acids are usable for fuel.
Organisms typically cannot metabolize all types of carbohydrate to yield energy. Glucose is a nearly universal and accessible source of calories. Many organisms also have the ability to metabolize other monosaccharides and Disaccharides, though glucose is preferred. In Escherichia coli, for example, the lac operon will express enzymes for the digestion of lactose when it is present, but if both lactose and glucose are present the lac operon is repressed, resulting in the glucose being used first (see: Diauxie). Polysaccharides are also common sources of energy. Many organisms can easily break down starches into glucose, however, most organisms cannot metabolize cellulose or other polysaccharides like chitin and arabinoxylans. These carbohydrates types can be metabolized by some bacteria and protists. Ruminants and termites, for example, use microorganisms to process cellulose. Even though these complex carbohydrates are not very digestible, they may comprise important dietary elements for humans. Called dietary fiber, these carbohydrates enhance digestion among other benefits. [13]

im on atkins so i lowered my carb count in the setting and i read the book about it so once there are less bad carbs in ur diet ur body will burn fat over the bad carbs so ur right on track..its working for me..good luck