Quote:
The burden of proof, IMO, is on those who say that they can eat consistently excessive calories over a period of time (excess of what they burn off over that same period of time) and LOSE weight. I have not seen any of the low-carb doctors whom I have read nor any scientific research make this claim, even those who discuss metabolic advantages to eating low-carb/high-fat don't make this claim from what I have read, because it goes against the, I thought, generally accepted law of thermodynamics.
|
I have not seen anybody claim that they do this: "...they can eat consistently excessive calories over a period of time (excess of what they burn off over that same period of time) and LOSE weight." I have only seen people claim that when you are low-carbing, you can eat 'consistently excessive calories over a period of time' and NOT gain. Which is not the same thing.
So... are you you referring to a few people on internet forums? Or is this some official claim you're referring to? Just curious, thinking I must have missed that somewhere.
Quote:
Well, using my husband again to clarify what I meant . . . Granted, he has a very high BMR. HOWEVER, it mattered not whether he ate 2500 calories or 6000 calories. What I mean is, if a person can take in 6k calories and not gain weight, he should lose weight on 2.5k calories, but he didn't. However, if a person can maintain on 2.5k calories, he should gain weight on 6k calories, but again, he didn't.
|
Historically and with careful tracking, I can not-lose on 1000 calories a day, not-lose on 3000 calories a day (on the VERY rare times I've been able to eat that, thanks to bacon mayo cheese avocado mostly!), but lose on 2300 calories a day, *assuming carbs are low*, WHEN I can actually get carbs-protein-calories at the right place on the same day (which is just surreally uncommon for some stupid reason). If carbs are up, I gain weight even when barely eating (and then when calories go high even briefly, gain a whole lot).
It seems clear in my own body that lowcarb vs. highcarb makes all the metabolic difference to begin with; calories do apparently matter to weight LOSS (too low being just as bad as too high for me) but carbs come first in priority, and calories do not seem to bring about weight GAIN as long as I'm on lowcarb (but even low calories can when I'm not LC).
Of course the problem with low calories and highcarb is that I can only eat that way for awhile (even by accident/convenience/laziness) before I eventually just freak out and eat every carb in sight for a day. Or ten. So any evaluation of the highcarb lowcal effect on me would have to be done quickly before my predictable freakout result. Which I tend to figure is because my body's driving much internal hunger and it's hardwired to aim for maximum 'energy food' at that point. Thank God I never actually 'dieted' besides one just after I gained weight in my early 20s, or I probably would have weighed 1000# instead of just over 500.
I have yet to totally get 100% rid of foods I know have a degree of intolerant/allergenic/inflammatory effect in me though (grains, which I eat little of but some gluten, and dairy, which I eat a decent amount of). I'm starting to think that maybe until that variable is controlled for, all our studies on calories and carbs have an intrusive variable we're not accounting for. If you figure it's possible that a very big chunk of the population has some similar intolerances that could explain a confounding effect in other studies.