another serious question....

[nocarbkat]

I been on vacation this week and doing alot of thinking, again, I am not out to offend anyone, but I am wonder other peoples thoughts on this...

All things being equal, (meaning a person is completely healthy, no diabetes, or other medical problems) if calories are really the only thing that is proven (as far as I read anyway--and I have read alot) to work in weight loss really, and veggies and fruits are low calorie, then why would someone want to eat say...a large serving of meat with lots of calories, but not a large serving of say...strawberries with fewer calories.

What I am trying to say is, if the bottem line is calorie in v.s. calorie out, then why not just eat a low calorie diet and forget all the carb counting, fat counting, etc, etc....

[LucyLucy]

With a name like NO CARB KAT, I have to wonder exactly why you are here?

LL :)

[gotbeer]

Because, after eating a carby, low calorie meal, one is hungry again soon after. And that means, more calories are eaten soon after.

A fatty meal, for someone in ketosis, is satisfying for hours and hours - so fewer calories are eaten overall..

[LisaAC]

Think about it. Most of us suffer from Insulin Resistance, that's why a lot of people can't loose weight. You might want to read up on it if you're not too familar with this condition that's more common than one would think.

If you're having trouble loosing weight, due to your body being Insulin Resistant, and you put more sugars in your body...is it going to burn it up..NO...it's going to store it because the fat stores are already full if not in the process of it.

If you put mostly protien in your body, it's burnt up. Eating lower carbs forces your body to then turn the fat that's stored into energy. If you merely put carbs in it, it burns those first and stores what isn't used. Which with the recommended daily allowance of breads, pastas, what have you, being 6-11 servings, means the body very rarely burns up all those carbs, thus..it stores the rest.

When you eat lots of carbs, your body brings in the insulin to change it into sugar, but when your body has so much carbs to work on, you can also get a sudden sugar drop after that sugar high. The reason we even get hungry is because the blood sugar level drops. It's the drop in the blood sugar that makes the body want something else to eat in order to bring the blood sugar back up. Even a dietician will tell you, that if you want to stabolilze your blood sugar better, eat more protien and less carbs.

Honesty, when people say they cannot loose weight no matter what they do, it usually means their body literally CAN'T loose the weight. Normally due to the hormone insulin.

If you eat low carb long enough your body fixes the insulin resistance problem. Hense, this isn't just a diet for most of us..it's kind of "cure" an alternative treatment. For me, and a lot of other people, it's eased up medical conditions.

And remember, not everyone's body is the same, we're not all cookie cutter people. So, why should all diets have to be the same? Each body is made up different chemically, so we have to choose the diet that best suits our bodies needs. :)

[Kristine]

>>"if calories are really the only thing that is proven..."

It isn't. It's not proven, it's assumed. Calories only really work in a bunsen burner. The human body has too many factors that affect metabolism. A few examples: someone with a thyroid disorder can gain or lose weight even if they don't change their caloric intake. Someone who consumes very few calories will have their metabolism become much lower. And, of course, someone controlling their carbohydrate intake can cause a lot of their calories to be wasted in the form of ketones (which can't be stored.)

>>"...a large serving of meat with lots of calories, but not a large serving of say...strawberries with fewer calories."

If the meat makes them satisfied while the strawberries make them hungrier, it sounds like a good choice to me. Personally, I couldn't eat a "large" serving of meat, anyway. If you're referring to induction, during which time fruit is a no-no, that's mainly to retrain your brain and your body to burn fat. There's no reason not to eat them later on.

"why not just eat a low calorie diet and forget all the carb counting, fat counting, etc, etc...."

Because it leaves you seriously unsatisfied.

[Lisa N]

All things being equal, (meaning a person is completely healthy, no diabetes, or other medical problems) if calories are really the only thing that is proven (as far as I read anyway--and I have read alot) to work in weight loss really, and veggies and fruits are low calorie, then why would someone want to eat say...a large serving of meat with lots of calories, but not a large serving of say...strawberries with fewer calories.

First of all, a gram of protein has no more calories than a gram of carb; they are both equal calorically. What they are not equal in is things that your body needs to build, repair and maintain itself; essential amino acids and essential fatty acids. Satiation is also important. If I eat 4 oz. of strawberries, I will likely be hungry again fairly soon. If I were to eat 4 oz. of chicken or steak, I will stay satisfied much longer. Pair that with a good size serving of broccoli or another low glycemic vegetable and I likely won't get hungry again until it's time for my next meal and I've provided my body with much better conditions to function than if I had eaten only vegetables or fruit without any fats or protein.
Something else that hasn't been mentioned is that low carb is not strictly meat, at least not if you're following the plan correctly. A good deal of vegetables are also allowed as well as some low glycemic fruits. Many plans allow fruits such as berries right from the beginning. Even Atkins allows fruits (although a lot of people don't think of them as fruits) during induction such as tomatoes, avocados, cucumbers and olives.
The calories in/calories out theory has definitely not been proven. As a matter of fact, a recent study left scientists scratching their heads as the low carb group averaged 300 calories more per day and still managed to lose an equal amount of weight (actually a bit more) as their high carb/low cal counterparts.

[kyrie]

Fat calories are more filling than sugar calories, mainly because they are digested much more slowly.

If you eat a lot of sugar calories at once, it hits your body quickly, and your blood sugar will get high. Your body will release insulin to prevent any damage from the high blood sugar, and the insulin turns the extra sugar into stored body fat. Before long, you've either stored the energy or used it, and you need more, so you start to feel hungry.

You can do without eating, dealing with the hunger, and trying to force your body to take the stored energy out of the new fat cells, or you can do what most do, which is eat.

OR you can eat a lot of fat calories, which will enter your system more slowly, letting you use them as they arrive. You have a longer-lasting source of energy, and you can go longer without eating.

Since you're well read, I assume you've read the recent studies that show that a low carb diet lets you lose weight faster than a low fat diet does? On the same number of calories! There's a lot more to it than calories-in/calories-out.

[elijaeger]

Original poster, low calorie diets are quite successful under a few circumstances: sufficient protein, sufficient vitamins and minerals, and sufficient essential fatty acids. Unfortunately, they are not terribly filling and most people don't last very long. Low carb on the other hand, is generally quite filling and most people are able to eat until satisfied and still are eating hypo-caloric and losing weight.

What I am trying to say is, if the bottem line is calorie in v.s. calorie out, then why not just eat a low calorie diet and forget all the carb counting, fat counting, etc, etc....
If you don't get enough protein (anybody been on an ultra low fat diet - hard to get enough protein!) your body will start to catabolize itself because it is not getting the sufficient materials to maintain itself and your metaolism will slow way down.

Carb counting, fat counting, you're right, it matters most what works for you. For the people on this forum, they tried low fat and couldn't get it to work. Low carb is what works for them. Also note a lot of low carbers do track calories because you still have to eat less to lose weight. Some low carbers think it is magic, it is not.

[black57]

Even if one is not insulin resistant, a high carb diet will cause an insulin spike. IMHO eat in a manner that will keep your insulin under control. I work with people who will have a spike in their insulin and they will become shaky and hunt out food to eat. This food is generally of the carby presuasion and their urge for food will rebound. If you are going to play games with your insulin levels then it will be very difficult to not overeat them calories. Protein and fat, actually, is the answer to keep that under control not more carbs. I think the low carb diet is something that outsiders think are odd. But there are many who just eat a good healthy balance of proteins, fats and veggies that are low in carbs. We are healthy, our doctors tells us so.

[black57]

Oh, one other thing, I have read some of the posts and see that you are well-read. You have read that obesity in America increased dramatically when low-fat diets became popular?

[jimjam]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but the low-fat craze was a result of obesity increasing - not BECAUSE of it. OBesity has been increasing for over 2 decades and the first thinking was to reduce calories. I just read that from ACE Fitness plus I've read it elsewhere, so I just wanted to correct that incorrect line of thought. But regarding carbs, all diets discourage sugary foods like cookies, cakes, donuts, etc., but I know few that discourage fruits. I still eat as much fruit as I can and it hasn't hurt my weight at all...

[Hellistile]

Jimjam: I don't mean to be argumentative, but I didn't read about low-fat diets like you did, I was around when they started and everything else that went with the low-fat craze and that was more than 30 years ago. In fact, I bought into the low-fat hype about 20 years ago and it contributed to my obesity. Trust me, low fat dieting did not decrease obesity stats, it increased them.

BTW I am on a low-carb plan called NeanderThin. I can eat fruit.

[elijaeger]

Trust me, low fat dieting did not decrease obesity stats, it increased them.

That is generally correct, the low fat fad in the 80s and 90s certainly saw a connection to increased obesity. What is most to blame is increased overall caloric consumption and decreased caloric expenditure.

What the facts are that eating a low fat sub-maintenance diet, you will lose weight. Period. This has been proven with any method of eating including low fat, low carb. Low fat diets fail because it is hard to maintain that diet. It is too easy to cheat on "free" low fat foods.

The true merit of a way of eating is: are you hungry? are you getting sufficient nutrients and protein? is your health improving? If so, go for it regardless of low fat or low carb.

[Lisa N]

OBesity has been increasing for over 2 decades

Which coincides nicely with when low fat really began to take hold and low fat/fat free products started literally appearing everywhere (early 80's). ;)

[loserbaby]

I have seen studies that say a calorie is a calorie, and then i have seen the ones that say the opposite. All I can really go by is personal experience. 2 years of Low cal WW,1700 calorie-a-day diet: no weight loss and continual sense of starvation vs. Low carb/Atkins at about 20 carbs and 1800 cal-a-day for 6 months: over 100 pounds off and no feelings of starvation. Seems pretty simple to me.

[elijaeger]

I have seen studies that say a calorie is a calorie, and then i have seen the ones that say the opposite. All I can really go by is personal experience. 2 years of Low cal WW,1700 calorie-a-day diet: no weight loss and continual sense of starvation vs. Low carb/Atkins at about 20 carbs and 1800 cal-a-day for 6 months: over 100 pounds off and no feelings of starvation. Seems pretty simple to me.
Most of the studies that show low carb = low fat are strictly controlled and only show greater water weight lost with low carb. Most of the studies where people are supposed to track calories and report are across the board because people are notoriously bad about counting calories (not the people on this board of course...) Some studies show equal weight loss, others show greater low carb loss.

My last comment about this topic is that low fat diets generally get pushed to too low of protein (e.g. meat is bad diets) and the body is forced to slow down metabolism. That's not scientific, just observation and might account for such dramatic results with low carb (namely low carb usually having sufficient protein)

[ItsTheWooo]

Because, after eating a carby, low calorie meal, one is hungry again soon after. And that means, more calories are eaten soon after.

A fatty meal, for someone in ketosis, is satisfying for hours and hours - so fewer calories are eaten overall..
Good answer :)

Also, if you are insulin resistant (as many with weight problems are), carbs are a risk factor independent of calories for weight gain/resistance to weight loss.

In the end it is all about calories, and restricting calories severely enough will 100% of the time result in catabolism. However the reality is more complex than that. This is easier said than done for most people.

You need a diet where you don't feel hungry all the time. You need a diet you can stick with. Most importantly, you need a diet which doesn't trigger hyperinsulinemia, thus allowing your body to enter the catabolic state which is a prerequisite for body fat burning. For people w/o insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia is avoided by not eating energy excess, and hypoinsulinemia (and by extension catabolism) achieved by running an energy deficit. This is true of the insulin resistant as well, of course, however there is a difference of *degree*. The problem is that insulin resistant people become hyperinsulinemic on low levels of calories, *if* those calories are the wrong kinds of calories. Also, insensitive receptors necessitate large surges of insulin to clear out blood sugar spikes, meaning the IR individual has a much harder time becoming hypoinsulinemic & eliciting catabolism (energy synthesis from body fat & protein). By harder I mean they have to more severely restrict calories than a normal person. It is a double threat; not only do they have to restrict calories more severely, but the hyperinsulinemia makes running a calorie deficit excruciatingly painful (think: hypoglycemia symptoms, chronic hunger, food obsession, etc).

Low carbing is a way of avoiding all the horrible things associated with a pure low calorie-low fat approach while also losing weight. If you are an insulin resistant individual, like myself and many others with a history of obesity & severe weight problems, than low carb is an essential tool to maintain low body weight. I never would have obtained & maintained the weight I have today w/o it.

[ItsTheWooo]

Even if one is not insulin resistant, a high carb diet will cause an insulin spike. IMHO eat in a manner that will keep your insulin under control. I work with people who will have a spike in their insulin and they will become shaky and hunt out food to eat. This food is generally of the carby presuasion and their urge for food will rebound. If you are going to play games with your insulin levels then it will be very difficult to not overeat them calories. Protein and fat, actually, is the answer to keep that under control not more carbs. I think the low carb diet is something that outsiders think are odd. But there are many who just eat a good healthy balance of proteins, fats and veggies that are low in carbs. We are healthy, our doctors tells us so.
The difference is congruency. In a normal individual, the insulin reaction is congruent with the energy intake action; quantity of energy ultimately determines quantity of insulin irregardless of speed of digestion. For an insulin resistant person, speed of energy assimilation is a factor independent of total caloric value of the energy being consumed for hyperinsulinemia. The spike of insulin needs to be *larger* than the spike of sugar, because their receptors are insensitive and therefore cannot handle large glycemic loads. For the insulin resistant person, they may very well experience a "spike" of insulin that a normal person would produce only when eating way, way more calories.

For a normal person, it is only a "spike" if you are eating lots of calories, in which case you shouldn't expect to lose weight in the first place. Normal people will "spike" when they eat something like a 700 calorie piece of cake, and of course they should - after all, insulin acts on energy, and if you flood your body with caloric energy naturally you should expect the fat storing hormone to rise in response. However, normal people *don't* insulin spike on 90 calorie rice cakes... this is the difference between the insulin resistant and the metabolically normal. Insulin normal people spike only in response to an excessive total quantity of energy. Energy excess = insulin excess = fat storage. This is normal and how insulin is supposed to work - it acts on energy, and therefore increasing energy also increases insulin levels. However, insulin insensitive people spike in response to both quantity *and* speed of delivered energy. The problem with insulin resistant people is that as a consequence of their insensitive receptors, they quite simply cannot tolerate quick bursts of energy - even if the total value of that energy is considered "low" for a meal. The only way for the insulin resistant body to clear out a large hit of sugar is by elevating insulin to abnormally high levels (for the amount of energy actually being consumed). This is why the insulin resistant have such a big problem with carbs - carbs are broken down quickly and they cause a hyperinsulinemic environment for us.

I once read about this study where they gathered a group of non-diabetic insulin resistant people and a group of insulin normal people and fed them high glycemic load (and by extension, quick-burning) food. They measured their blood sugars and also their insulin levels at half hour intervals. In both groups, the blood sugars were basically the same - there was an elevation after eating which then was slowly brought down. In the insulin resistant group they had a more difficult time lowering sugar in that it took a little longer, but there was no huge difference between the two groups in glycemic control.

However, what showed a *huge* disparity was insulin levels. The phase 1 insulin response (the "basic" amount of insulin released upon eating) of both groups were similar, but the insulin resistant group had a huuuge phase 2 response (the insulin which is released after eating to regulate blood sugar). In the insulin normal group, the insulin slightly elevated and then blood sugar was brought under control, no fuss no muss. In the insulin resistant group, the insulin kept climbing and climbing as the body struggled to lower the sugar. At their peak, the insulin levels of the insulin resistant group were 5 times that of the metabolically normal group.

This is the difference between normal people and the insulin resistant. Insulin resistant people can't eat quick burning foods because it forces our bodies into a state which mimics a high calorie diet. It doesn't do that to normal people.

[ItsTheWooo]

I have seen studies that say a calorie is a calorie, and then i have seen the ones that say the opposite. All I can really go by is personal experience. 2 years of Low cal WW,1700 calorie-a-day diet: no weight loss and continual sense of starvation vs. Low carb/Atkins at about 20 carbs and 1800 cal-a-day for 6 months: over 100 pounds off and no feelings of starvation. Seems pretty simple to me.
Yep. Testimonials like this really show how important it is to control insulin resistance if you want to lose weight. A calorie is definitely NOT a calorie.

[elijaeger]

Saying a calorie is not a calorie is dangerous. It give people the impression that any of the 3 macronutrients is particularly bad or evil.

Put a person on a low calorie, low fat, low protein diet of say 1000 calories. They will lose a lot of weight. Their metabolism will crash. They will always be hungry and lethargic.

Put a person on a lowish calorie, high fat, high-enough protein diet of 1500 calories. They will lose a lot of weight. Their metabolism won't crash very much. They won't lose much muscle. They will generally be satisfied and fine with energy.

Is a calorie still a calorie? Yes, in the sense of energy in=energy out. Is one diet superior in terms of results and long term sustainability? Absolutely.

[CheesyPoof]

then why would someone want to eat say...a large serving of meat with lots of calories, but not a large serving of say...strawberries with fewer calories.


Some people can eat just the berries and beans and other low calories items and be just fine. Some people feel satiated at the proper calories their bodies require at their ideal weight. But some people can't and don't.