Cut Carbs Lose Weight -- then again....

[Pedaling Fool]

I love these studies on diets, doesn't bother me, because I think I got it down for my body, but I can imagine the people that use these studies as gospel


http://theconversation.edu.au/monday...se-weight-8711


20 August 2012, 2.20pm AEST
Monday's medical myth: cutting carbs is the best way to lose weight



There seems to be an endless number of fad diets and “golden rules” for weight loss. One of the most popular of these rules is that cutting carbohydrates (carbs) is the best way to lose weight.

The most famous low-carb diet is the Atkins diet, first developed in the 1970s. The Atkins diet recommends limiting foods high in carbs, such as bread, pasta and rice. Carbs are replaced with foods containing a higher percentage of proteins and fats (meat, poultry, fish, eggs and cheese) and other low-carb foods (most vegetables).

But what does the evidence show us about whether low-carb diets really are best for weight loss?

Theoretically, a “calorie is a calorie” and it doesn’t matter what types of food the calories come from. Accordingly, all reduced-energy (calorie) diets should lead to equivalent weight loss.

However, some studies have reported that low-carb diets lead to greater weight loss than other types of diets, at least in the short-term. So, what are the possible explanations for these results, and can we rely on them?

1) Changes in body composition

Energy is stored in the body as protein, fat, and glycogen, which is a form of carbohydrate. If there is an imbalance between how many of these nutrients are ingested (through the food that is eaten) and how many are used by the body for every day functions, body composition will change.

In turn, this will affect body weight because of the different impact that the relative amounts of stored protein, fat and carbohydrates have on body weight.


However, the vast majority of studies in which they’ve measured calorie intake very accurately (that is, they’ve locked people in a room and measured exactly what they’ve eaten for several days), show absolutely no difference in weight loss based on the composition of the diet. High-protein diets and high-carb diets resulted in the same weight loss.

This indicates that, in the short-term at least, the human body is a superb regulator of the type of energy it uses, and whether the diet is low-carb or high-carb probably won’t make much of a difference to the amount of weight lost.

2) Changes in metabolic rate

The body’s metabolic rate (the amount of energy expended by the body in a given time) is dependent on the composition of the diet. Consumption of protein, for example, is known to result in a larger increase in energy expenditure for several hours after a meal compared with the consumption of fat or carbs.

But the overall effect of diet composition on total energy expenditure is relatively small. As a result, the assumption that a “calorie is a calorie” is probably a reasonable estimation as far as energy expenditure is concerned.

3) Changes in hunger levels and satiety

Some diets can lead to reduced hunger, improved satiety (feeling full), and can be easier to stick to than others. There is an enormous amount of research on this.


The problem is that it’s extremely difficult to accurately measure what people are eating over extended time periods. People rarely stick to their diets for more than just a few weeks, making it almost impossible to adequately compare the effects of different diets.

And so, is cutting carbs the best way to lose weight?

Maybe, but there’s not really good evidence supporting it. All diets with similar calorie content have a similar effect on weight loss in the short-term. This is because the body adapts rapidly to changes in relative protein, fat and carbohydrate intake levels.

The truth is that losing weight and keeping it off in the long-term is difficult. It requires permanent changes to the number of calories you eat each day.

Perhaps the best dietary advice comes from Michael Pollan when he says, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

[colorado_rob]

Yeah, all you can rely on is your own personal experience for such things, and you have to be very objective even at that. I do believe, for me at least, when I've gained, say, 5 pounds over the course of some period, that if I switch back to a low-glycemic diet for a month or so, those pounds start to drop a bit. "Low Glycemic" isnt quite the same as "low carb", but very similar. Lots of meat, eggs, high-fiber carbs and veggies and voila, I can lose some extra weight. An "Atkins-like" diet. I've used this enough over the years to know that this does indeed work for me. Maybe it's simply because eating these foods fills me up with fewer calories, who knows, but it works every time. I'm in that phase right now, kind of pre-holiday-drop-a-few mode because Xmas is a Carb-fest, high-glycemic part time.

It really is quite amusing how many conflicting "scientific studies" are out there.

[FarmerChef]

Agree on the conflicting studies. I'm heavily influenced by guys like Michael Pollan, Joel Salatin and Dr. Phil Maffetone. I've lost weight both in reducing calories and in assuming a low-carb (but not branded) diet. The best thing I've discovered is that when we consume fat and carbs together it chemically produces stored fat in our body. And one thing we Americans just to love to eat is carbs and fat together.

When I stripped most of this out of my diet and started to time my carbs around exercise it made a dramatic difference in my fat percentage. Oh and that's another thing. Folks trying to slim up and get more healthy should care less how much they weigh (a useless measurement) and measure their body fat percentage (useful measurement) instead. Impedance scales cost only slightly more than mid-range bathroom scales and can tell us so much more than weight alone. I'm 5'7 and 161 pounds but my body fat percentage is around 8%. According to BMI (weight and height) I'm overweight.

[Seatbelt]

In reference to the quote about protein giving one more instant energy than carbs or fats----I always heard the opposite was true????

[patman25]

Another negative about a low carb diet is that carbs are our brains primary fuel source. Which is why people feel so lethargic when they are on an Atkins type diet. Their brain is screaming that it needs food! My personal view on it is that if you exercise quite a bit then a high carb diet with low fats and moderate protien(too much protein will hurt your kidneys) is the best all around diet. Maybe throw in a cleanse every now and then for good measure. This is what works for me and I run around with 12% body fat.

[MuddyWaters]

The truth is that losing weight and keeping it off in the long-term is difficult.

B.S.
Losing weight and keeping it off is simple.

You cannot consume extra calories without gaining fat, EVER.
You cannot lose the fat without increasing caloric expenditure or restricting calories.
Pretty freaking simple.

Most people are just horribly lazy and weak-minded.
They tell themselves that they are in pretty good shape, as muffin-top spill over thier pants
They are addicted to soft drinks, fast foods, and sugary fat-loaded snack food items

It is darn near impossible to overeat, eating healthy foods

[Starchild]

I find it's a very personal thing finding out what works for a person as a individual and what doesn't. Some people will excel at low carb, some at low fat, etc etc. The studies and recommendations I take as generalized guidelines that may or may not be appropriate for a specific person, worth trying but if the shoe doesn't fit don't try to force it. The diet should naturally work with your body.

For me low carb does work, low fat does not, I also have been given in a dream what an angel called 'Diet A' which I can use for weight loss at anytime without struggling.

Peace

[quilteresq]

I switched to low carb because I'm a newly diagnosed diabetic. In the course of a normal day, carbs only increase my blood glucose without getting into my cells for energy. (Insulin resistance) Getting energy from fats and protein is about the only way my body can do it. I'm much less hungry on a low carb diet - but I do indulge the fats - egg nog and my recipe for low carb Bailey's Irish cream this time of year. And I do have more energy. When you consider how many undiagnosed diabetics there are out there, they probably think Atkins is a miracle diet.

[max patch]

I've always been interested in nutrition and have an another example of how the "science" of all this changes.

The first nutrition book I ever bought was "Eat To Win" a sports nutrition book written by Dr Robert Haas in 1983. This book loved the white potato, and recommended we eat 2 large baked or boiled potatoes daily.

Today the white potato is on the "avoid" list because of its high glycemic index.

[FarmerChef]

B.S.
Losing weight and keeping it off is simple.

Simple yes. Easy? No.

You cannot consume extra calories without gaining fat, EVER.

Not sure. I haven't done an Atkins diet but I have done the Phil Maffetone two week test. I ate more calories than I know what I can tolerate on a standard diet and yet lost body fat as measured by induction (not weight). I'm no scientist or doctor but I'm guessing that the basics of chemistry apply here. If you aren't consuming enough carbohydrates to exceed your brain's requirement of 30 per day then you have no free glycerol molecule from the glucose to bind to the free lipids in your blood stream to create triglycerides (fat). Plus your low blood sugar and low insulin environment does not induce fat storage.

[QUOTE=MuddyWaters;1373134]
You cannot lose the fat without increasing caloric expenditure or restricting calories.
Pretty freaking simple.[/QUOTE/ Yup. Easy. No. It takes discipline to do both, not to mention time and prioritization, at least for the exercise. These character traits seem to be diminishing in our society. It makes me sad

Most people are just horribly lazy and weak-minded.
They tell themselves that they are in pretty good shape, as muffin-top spill over thier pants
They are addicted to soft drinks, fast foods, and sugary fat-loaded snack food items

It is darn near impossible to overeat, eating healthy foods

Most people on a western diet eat way too many processed, high glycemic carbs and have done so for most of their lives, raising the chances that they are at least carbohydrate intolerant if not prediabetic. Here's the rub. When we eat a donut for breakfast or a big bowl of frosted flakes with milk our rapidly rising blood sugar causes our brain to tell our pancrease to start secreting large quantities of insulin to reduce our blood sugar. This also triggers our adipose tissue to ready itself for fat storage and priority goes to storing energy over using it (assuming we don't eat that breakfast and immediately step onto the treadmill). As our blood glucose rises it rapidly lowers our blood sugar, what our muscles and brain are tuned to run on in a high carb diet. We get lethargic and hungry as our brain senses our blood sugar falling and calls us to act by eating more carbs. This creates a yo-yo cycle where an individual east carbs then gets the munchies and round and round and round.

So lazy? Perhaps. Addicted - almost certainly. I think food companies should be sued in the same manner as tobacco companies have been.

But in some ways our body conspires against us when we eat the wrong foods. Low glycemic carbs consumed with reasonable amounts of fiber causes a much slower release of glucose and a steadying effect. Protein and fat both cause us to feel full much faster. This is why people on an Atkins-style diet tend to not overeat as much because they get munchies less and theres less risk to overeating when you eat healthy foods. Right on there, Muddy!

[colorado_rob]

B.S.
Losing weight and keeping it off is simple.

You cannot consume extra calories without gaining fat, EVER.
You cannot lose the fat without increasing caloric expenditure or restricting calories.
Pretty freaking simple.

Most people are just horribly lazy and weak-minded.
They tell themselves that they are in pretty good shape, as muffin-top spill over thier pants
They are addicted to soft drinks, fast foods, and sugary fat-loaded snack food items

It is darn near impossible to overeat, eating healthy foods

Oversimplification. It is about timing, at least somewhat. When your sitting around and doing nothing and eat high glycemic foods, guess what? Your body has no need for those calories, so what does your body do? It does everything in it's power to store those calories... how to do so? throw it into body fat. Age-old survival tactic built in because we didn't always have food available. When we're exercising, those pure-sugar calories get burned first. When we're sitting around and eat low-glycemic foods (more fats), we digest these much slower, and basically feel "fuller" longer, and hence consume fewer calories. And isn't your last statement directly in conflict with your earlier statement? How can you eat as many calories as you want, even in "healthy foods" and not gain weight if you don't burn them>????

[MuddyWaters]

If you have ever tried to actually eat health, no butter, grease, fats, sugar, etc, you would know what Im referring to.

Try living off of cottage cheese, egg whites, skim milk, fruit, skinless chicken breast, steamed vegetables, tuna, brown rice, plain potatoes.

You wont over-eat, because you wont want to.

[colorado_rob]

If you have ever tried to actually eat health, no butter, grease, fats, sugar, etc, you would know what Im referring to.

Try living off of cottage cheese, egg whites, skim milk, fruit, skinless chicken breast, steamed vegetables, tuna, brown rice, plain potatoes.

You wont over-eat, because you wont want to.

Aha! Makes sense when you put it that way. I don't consider butter and other fats "unhealthy" though. Sugars, yes, at least when not on the trail.

[joshuasdad]

B.S.
You cannot consume extra calories without gaining fat, EVER.

Actually, you cannot gain fat from consuming calories from excess protein. Nor from alcohol...

[JAK]

That was very well put. In the modern world, at least in regions of plenty, we are up against three very natural things.
1. A food industry driven by profit that has gotten very good at knowing and producing what we want, and making us want them more, even if they are unnatural, and bad for us, and addictive.
2. Year round inescapable advertising, availability, and obsession.
3. A diet industry which itself is profit driven, and does more to perpetuate our obsessions than to correct them.

Profit is a wonderful thing, but it's a buyer beware world, everywhere you look and listen, every minute of the day.
If you try and tune it all out, or hide from it, it gets rather lonely.

[Rasty]

In reference to the quote about protein giving one more instant energy than carbs or fats----I always heard the opposite was true????

We were taught that carbs were the first instant energy source in nutrition classes when I wen't to culinary school. Of course I'm in the same industry that beat out tobacco as the number one killer of Americans. To our defense the healthy stuff sadly doesn't sell on most menus.

[RodentWhisperer]

I'm no dietician, so take this with a grain of salt (or lean white meat, MUFA, low-glycemic index carbs, etc.). From what I've read, what I've heard, and what I've seen, any/all of these fad diets that dogmatically dictate everyone to do follow one principle-- low carbs, low fat, whole grains, lean meats, you name it-- are missing the fact that everyone's bodies are different. What dietary choices work for one person might not for another.

What's worse, IMO, is that we Americans seem rather gullible. If the right person tells us how we should eat, we buy into it, no questions asked. And if some diet isn't working for us, we blame ourselves, or feel we've been cheated. Maybe if we all took some time to learn about our bodies, and thought some more about what we are told...

[Papa D]

I run about 30 miles each week when I'm not hiking or climbing - when I
m climbing. I hike an climb a few miles per day. When I'm seriously hiking, I'm doing
close to 20 mpd. I have a hard time getting over 150 pounds - - being underweight is
probably more of a problem for me - one time I weighed in at 129 which was scary -
people thought I had AIDS - I'm happily "fat" right now at about 152 - - not sure this
forum is for me - I have to eat a LOT to maintain.

[MuddyWaters]

What's worse, IMO, is that we Americans seem rather gullible. If the right person tells us how we should eat, we buy into it, no questions asked. And if some diet isn't working for us, we blame ourselves, or feel we've been cheated. Maybe if we all took some time to learn about our bodies, and thought some more about what we are told...

I dont know if its as much being gullible, as it is being in denial.
We all have health class in grade school today I believe, they cover this stuff.
People just want to eat , and eat way too much, because they find it pleasurable. Just like smoking or drinking or gambling.
No willpower, no self control, and in many cases, no self esteem.

Im not someone that thinks everyone should be a fashion model, but there is a time when many americans should say to themselves "maybe I need to lose some weight" instead of buying another set of clothes another size larger. Its only your health, and your life.

We were walking on a tour around a college campus in a small group last week, and one of the guys with us was tired of walking and complaining about it. He wasnt huge by any means, more like average. We probably didnt walk more than an easy 1/2 mile at most.

I think the even bigger problem is that there is no reason for most americans to maintain even modest physical shape. Their jobs dont require it, thier life doesnt require it.

Well , the times they-are-a-changing.

Two years ago at my work, we began charging smokers higher health insurance premiums. Much higher

Starting next year, we can no longer self-report health data into the wellness system. The Dr. must fax it in directly. This is because people with unhealthy bodyweight or other health choices within their control are going to be charged more as well.

[Odd Man Out]

There is another explanation for the low-carb weight loss not mentioned in the OP. That is forced metabolic inefficiency. On a very strict low carb diet,you body is forced to make its own carbs to maintain a normal blood sugar level. Since you can not make carbs from fats and you are not eating carbs, your only other choice is to make carbs from protein. However, this is metabolically inefficient. Nominally a gram of dry protein has about the same number of Calories as a gram of dry carbs. However, these figures is based on the energy release through aerobic catabolism (converting both to CO2). Converting the protein to carbs first will consume energy (provided by fats) and then burning the carbs will release energy, but the net amount of energy released from the protein will be lower than if the protein was just catabolized directly and not converted to carbs first. Thus a dietary Calorie does not always represent the same amount of energy. An extreme example of this is referred to as "Rabbit Starvation", where a person eats only lean meat (no carbs OR fats). In this case, you can eat all the Calories you want and you will still starve to death. In the absence of fat, you cannot get enough energy from catabolizing protein to make carbs. This is why a low carb diet replaces carbs with fat and protein, and not just protein.

But I'm not advocating low carb diets. I mostly agree with Muddy above. Eat less, exercise more, cook from scratch, don't worry about all the complex nutrition advice (worrying is bad). I would also add beer and wine in moderation is good for you, assuming it is good beer (not that megabrewery crap). Then when you are done, go for a hike.