When eating low-calorie, it seems that the body 'adapts' to the lesser calorie intake by reducing energy expenditure. Or in another way of putting it, slows down metabolism.

Over time I've noticed that many people on VLC (very-low carb plans, like <40, as opposed to merely 'lowcarb' which is usually <120 I think it is -- how we say it in lowcarber-speak is not how people outside our niche refer to it or think of it) get to where, they say if they go over like 30 carbs a day they gain weight.

That seems to me like body "adaptation" to ultra low carb over a period of time. Which seems to me, to be a bad thing.

Some feel that this is a good reason for the "Carb-Cycling." There are two reasons this is done -- one is by weight lifters who are splitting their 'gain muscle' vs. 'lose fat' periods up, and the other is by anyone who wants to eat lowcarb but doesn't want to "adapt" to that indefinitely, plus maybe thinks they can stay on LC better if occasionally they can have some stuff that ordinary VLC would not allow.

What do you guys think?

1. Does very-low-carb (<40/day) eventually cause body adaptation that would make it difficult for anyone eating this for a long time, to ever raise that much without weight gain?

2. Do you think carb-cycling helps prevent stalls or adaptation or monotony (and of the above) and hence is a good thing?

3. If you were to recommend carb cycling, what kind of ratio would be different enough to matter?

So could lowcarb eating consistently, be BAD for you, if it creates that adaptation? is part of what that question comes down to.

This is a very good question! I've heard so much in support and in opposition to both sides that I just don't know what to think!

Some say that staying LC long term is bad for you. Some say carb cycling weakens your adrenals and damages your metabolism.

Dunno, but I'm curious to see what others say here! Thanks for asking this question!

One issue that has to be accounted for is glycogen stores. When you're very low carb, those are depleted along with their associated water weight. Someone on a moderate carb diet has probably replenished the glycogen stores, and is humming along with them and their water weight.

If I'm very low carb and eat an unusually high number of carbs, I'm going to gain weight because of stored glycogen, not stored fat. If I continue to eat a maintenance (not overeating) level of higher carb, that weight will still be with me, even though I've probably not gained an ounce of fat.

Do people who say they gain weight when adding in carbs account for the added glycogen or do they just look at the scale?

These very low carb people that add carbs also have to answer under what conditions were the carbs added? A deviation from the norm (read binge or feast) or a conscious attempt to add in carbohydrates in specific increments (like Atkins determination of maintenance level)? If they're talking unusual eating, can we use that as a valid example?

Another issue at this time is the unpopularity of low carb. Many of us were driven to it because a low fat/high carb diet has failed because our metabolisms are messed up. We did not "choose" low carb. Rather, low carb chose us. Can we generalize from the current low carb population?

I dont know the answer to your question, but from my own experience, I'm now in my forth year of very low carbing (mostly between 30-40g a day - sometimes a little more, but mostly less). And, well my weight is pretty stable, I dont have any desire to increase my carbs on a regular basis, but if I did, would I gain weight??? Dunno, is the simple answer and I dont want to find out really! If I wanted to lose more weight, would decreasing my carbs achieve that?? again I dont know. I am of the opinion that my body has found the weight its happy with and to try to lose more would be a waste of time and would be temporary anyway.

I havent increased my carbs since starting this WOE, my weight loss just stopped - maybe thats because my body became used to it? although as I say, I think its just cos I'm at the right weight for my height!

I'm unsure about the adaption part, but I will stay "no", it isn't bad for us. What's bad is the reintroduction of carbs. If you believe in a paleo view of human nutrition, then a high level of carbs would seem to be unnatural, and looking at it from a diabetic standpoint, the higher level of carbs can be lethal.

Make the distinction between weight gain and fat gain--usually when someone who eats low carb has a bunch of carbs, they gain weight, but it's usually not fat gained (unless they ate ginormous quantities of food)--it's mostly glycogen repletion and water retention. NewRuth covered this pretty well in her post above. As for the question of long-term LC'ing being unhealthy--I think for most people it's not, esp. if they are eating a decent amount of calories, but for those people who are prone to hypothyroidism or are hypothyroid, VLC is a bad idea.

No, I can still stall out with carb cycling if I let my calories creep up. It DOES prevent monotony, though. I prefer carb cycling for dieting because it allows me to fuel my workouts, yet control my appetite. I don't have a problem eating carbs, so this works for me, but I am conscious of my trigger foods (like Hershey's kisses) and don't keep them in the house.
100g of carbs is the physiological cutoff for ketosis, for those unadapted to carbs. You need to make your low days less than 100g, and your high days greater than 100g. I prefer 60g and 150g; a friend of mine who is very carb sensitive prefers 30g and 110g.

I don't have an answer but I definately want to follow this discussion!

I'm hoping to keep up the very-low-carb WOE myself, so am glad to notice your success with this.

I've always wondered about this. Accounting for glycogen is very important, but I imagine that most people don't account for it and just panic when they see the scale rise a couple of pounds. I think people forget that it's to be expected to gain anywhere from 2lbs to 8lbs (approx.) just from glycogen/water weight when adding some carbs back in suddenly.

the short answer, and i agree with daryl, is "no."

the human body evolved to function at peak efficiency utilizing protein and fat, with a minimal amount of carbohydrate. so if we do adapt to a very low amount of dietary carbohydrate, then it's more like a re-adaptation back to the preferred fuel source.

along with the glycogen/water weight gain that we usually see when we spike our dietary carb intake for whatever reason, we also have to remember the chemistry cycle that happens when we ingest enough carbs to knock us out of ketosis. the insulin that's released in the presence of glucose does three things... it uses the glucose for fuel, it locks excess calories away in the fat stores, and prevents the body from using those fat stores as fuel as long as the glucose is present. this is a big reason why most of us who tried the low-fat/low-cal approach either got nowhere or gained weight... even with regular exercise, we never burned off all that glucose and let our bodies switch over.

so as far as i'm concerned, there's no way the adaptation to low-carb eating could be bad for you. evolution may have completely jury-rigged the system, but that doesn't mean the jury-rigging doesn't work as long as you work within the system's engineering specs.

This source
glycogen stores

gives possible glycogen stores as four pounds for every ten pounds of lean muscle (for a total of fourteen pounds.) No wonder some bodybuilders claim low carb flattens their muscles. Stuff like that really makes it hard to figure out what exactly it is you see in the mirror.

Just a thought, but since various different kinds of fat have different effects on the metabolism (coconut fat being ketogenic, the different effects of various fats on blood cholesterol, etc.), I guess where I'm going is maybe there's some value in cycling even within low carb foods?

According to Dr McCleary, a low carb diet causes a kind of benign insulin resistance, as part of the mechanism that spares glucose. I guess maybe without that, you'd end up with low blood sugar after the insulin response from eating protein.

According to Atkins in The New Diet Revolution, people can and do adapt to the ketogenic diet, and he suggests shaking things up in case of a stall.

That's interesting.

I think your point about 'cycling even within lowcarb' is probably a very good point. A variety of foods seems necessary given that (especially in today's world) there are so many things missing from any given food, and so many trace elements we don't really even understand yet.

Of course, I think a great variety in an LC eating plan goes a long way toward staying on it, too. At least for me. I can eat something I like every meal of the day for a week, but the minute I am tired of something, I'm done with it for awhile and I'll literally starve rather than eat it. Variety is a big deal.

As for the question of long-term LC'ing being unhealthy--I think for most people it's not, esp. if they are eating a decent amount of calories, but for those people who are prone to hypothyroidism or are hypothyroid, VLC is a bad idea.

Why is that? I'm hypothyroid. I take 100 of Synthroid daily.

1. I don't think so. I think that if a person has trouble increasing carbs, it's b/c they had a greater degree of carbohydrate metabolism before they ever began LC.

2. I think that carb cycling could be a good thing for other reasons, but not for the kind of adaptation you're speaking of.

3. If one was to carb-cycle, I would recommend just enough to remove ketosis. Any more than that could result in fat-storage, and that wouldn't be the goal of carb-cycling.

The only "adaptation," so-to-speak, that I am aware of (from reading Dr Eades blogs) is that one can become more efficient at using ketones over time. Meaning less might be spilled into the urine after a year of LC than it did at a month. (Fat will not be gained, of course, b/c insulin is still too low to stimulate fat storage. The ketones will be burned in what he calls "futile-cycling" inside the cells.)

My opinion as to why people regain weight so quickly after any diet is that the fat cells are still seeking to achieve their primary objective, which is to store fat. Nothing can ever change that.

The easiest medium from which convert and store body fat is carbohydrate--and also fat in the presence of the carbohydrate. So when excess carbs are brought in, the insulin and fat cells are simply doing their job. Filling those waiting fat cells with what they were created to hold: fat.

The more carbohydrate metabolism dysfunction the person had to begin with, the faster the fat will accumulate.