[MCRed]

In both groups %50 of their calories came from carbohydrates. Carbs are quick sugar energy, and the resulting rise in blood sugar tells the body that it has plenty of energy.

This would have been much more interesting if one group had low to zero cards, and high fat and high protein.

Such a diet has worked well for me to lose a hundred pounds in 8 months... without any exercise. (and I don't think I'm losing muscle.)

The question is- can you cut carbs and become fat adapted (Which is what I have done, and the results are dramatic, my bodies response to fat is much different than before)... while still building muscle.

This is the next phase for me- the second hundred pounds I want to lose I will do while working out and building muscle.

In my case, this change in diet has become a change in lifestyle. I'm perfectly happy eating steak and BBQ and when I get a hankering for a pizza I make it with almond flour and have very little carbs. It's easy and fun and I'm eating better now (and saving money) while feeling much better.

Like the people in the study I've also recently started experimenting with a shake. It's called "Keto Chow" and you can find the recipe at diy.soylent.com. The nice thing about this is that I put my daily vitamins in the shake and some supplements so I'm getting better nutrition than I was before.

This is taking essentially no effort. Before when I dieted (low fat, high carb standard "diet") it was very difficult because it took a huge amount of willpower.

This takes almost none.

Of course, exercising will take willpower so I'm finding exercises that I like to do. Dancing is my aerobic approach. Not sure what I will do for muscle building yet, though, because lifting is kinda boring. (but I do have dumbbells next to my chair and I pick them up and exercise a bit when I'm thinking.)

I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others.

[WhyDoiPostHere]

Lifting may be boring, but it's not time consuming. If you want to build muscle, you want to stick to high weight/low reps anyway. The benefits weight lifting gives you is enormous and extends well beyond just building muscle.

[melted]

If you want to build _strength_ you'll do high weight/low reps. If you want primarily size, you need to have the volume (about 8 reps pre set for most exercises, and 3-5 sets), which could be pretty time consuming.

[realusername]

(Not the one who downvoted you). Why do people always mention carbs this days ? Is it the new trend after the no-fat diet ? I just don't get it, carbs have always been a major part of meals since medieval times and it's clearly a part of a normal alimentation, if you put everything in moderation, I don't see really the problem, I just don't get it.

[Someone1234]

Complex carbs are definitely not new, but the amount we eat today is unusual in the grand scheme of things. Cutting them is currently popular for one very simple reason: It works.

Cutting sugar is very healthy and will likely result in weight loss, but if you cut sugar and replace if with carbs like bread and pasta, you've kind of exchanged one bad for another.

If however you cut both complex carbs AND sugar, and replace them both with almost anything else you'll shed the weight. Seems the Atkin's diet (eat unprocessed meats only) really did have some merits after all, fats and animal proteins are very healthy, as are greens, just have to kick that sugar addiction...

I'd be legitimately interested to meet an overweight individual who could maintain that weight without eating sugar or complex carbs, I don't personally think it is possible, but I'd be interested to be proved wrong.

[noondip]

> fats and animal proteins are very healthy

If so, why did Dr. Atkins die overweight with a history of heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension? Please, don't buy into the Atkins/low-carb/paleo hype - check out http://www.atkinsfacts.org/

[Someone1234]

He died at the age of 72... Plus this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Atkins_(nutritionist)#C...

If you follow general nutrition there is almost nobody currently saying sugar and complex carbs are good for you, everyone is saying to limit your intake, while consuming more fats, proteins, and greens.

All of those diets have one thing in common: Less sugar and less of things that easily metabolize into sugar.

[noondip]

> there is almost nobody currently saying sugar and complex carbs are good for you, everyone is saying to limit your intake

Who is saying to limit intake of carbs? Definitely not any non-profit organization like WHO:

> The Consultation RECOMMENDS:

> 3. Against the use of the terms extrinsic and intrinsic sugars, complex carbohydrate and available and unavailable carbohydrate.

> 11. That the many health benefits of dietary carbohydrates should be recognized and promoted. Carbohydrate foods provide more than energy alone.

> 12. An optimum diet of at least 55% of total energy from a variety of carbohydrate sources for all ages except for children under the age of two.

> 17. That the bulk of carbohydrate-containing foods consumed be those rich in non-starch polysaccharides and with a low glycemic index. Appropriately processed cereals, vegetables, legumes, and fruits are particularly good food choices.

> 18. That excess energy intake in any form will cause body fat accumulation, so that excess consumption of low fat foods, while not as obesity-producing as excess consumption of high fat products, will lead to obesity if energy expenditure is not increased. Excessive intakes of sugars which compromise micronutrient density should be avoided. There is no evidence of a direct involvement of sucrose, other sugars and starch in the etiology of lifestyle-related diseases.

http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/nutrientrequiremen...

[Someone1234]

That's a 19 year old report...

> Who is saying to limit intake of carbs?

NHS[0]. US Government[1]. Harvard nutritionists[2]. Health Canada[3]. American Diabetes Association[4]. American Heart Association[5]. Need I go on? Who ISN'T saying limit carb intake?

[0] http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/pages/eatwell-plate.aspx [1] http://www.choosemyplate.gov/ [2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-... [3] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/food-guide-aliment/basics-base/... [4] http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals... [5] http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nu...

[rhinoceraptor]

The plural of anecdote is not data. And you only gave one.

[pinkrooftop]

It's possible, calories in > calories out and you will still gain weight. Zero carb facilitates satiation on fewer calories

[WhyDoiPostHere]

Because carbs affect insulin. When your insulin is high, you store fat. When your insulin is low, you burn fat. It's that simple. Combine that with the fact we in the western world overconsume carbs because they're cheap and addictive and you get your answer.

[noondip]

Carbs make your insulin go up, but so does protein; a steak will cause substantially higher insulin secretion than pure white table sugar. What you really want to be eating is a high-carbohydrate, high-fiber diet (whole plant foods, lots of whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables).

[WhyDoiPostHere]

Absolute nonsense. I don't suppose you have actual science to back up your quackery?

[noondip]

Well, since you've asked so politely!

An insulin index of foods: the insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portion of common foods

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.abstract

[oh_sigh]

> Carbs are quick sugar energy

Sugars are a type of carbs. There are many other types of carbohydrates than sugar.

[redthrowaway]

>I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others.

You think the first law of thermodynamics is bullshit?

[logfromblammo]

It isn't bullshit, but it isn't helpful information to someone trying to lose adipose mass.

Repeating it to a fatty as fat-loss advice is a lot like trying to teach someone to swim by continually telling them that water is wet. Absolutely true, but completely unhelpful.

The broken element in a fatty is a complex biochemical feedback system that ultimately does not send "start eating" and "stop eating" signals at appropriate times. The frontal cortex can consciously override it to some extent, by refusing to eat when the "start eating" signal is sent, but this is psychologically very stressful.

One of the great things about low-carb and keto diets is that the body's backup ketone-burning power system is usually not affected by the buggy firmware updates that have been applied to the carb-burning system over the years. Once you are adapted to it, you can consciously control your caloric intake as appropriate for your body-reform plan without getting bombarded by unsatiated appetite signals every waking moment of your day. You can eat a 1200 kcal diet without biting through the padlock on the fridge and gorging yourself on whatever is in there.

A fatty usually isn't fat because they want to be, or because they don't understand thermodynamic balance. They're fat because they have a little shoulder devil constantly whispering in their ear, that just won't shut up, ever.

  DEVIL:  Hey.  I want a doughnut.  I want a dozen doughnuts.
  FATTY:  No.
  DEVIL:  Get me a doughnut.  Do it.  Do it now.  Gooey jelly doughnut.
  FATTY:  Those are like 300 Calories.  Each.  So, no.
  DEVIL:  Don't care.  Ok, compromise.  3 beignets.  C'est si bon.
  FATTY:  No!
  DEVIL:  Fine.  Churros, por favor.  Me gusta.
  FATTY:  No.  No fried sugar-dough of any kind.  Will french fries work?
  DEVIL:  Super size!  Extra ketchup!  Fountain drink!
  FATTY:  [om nom nom]
  DEVIL:  Now I want chocolate.

As you can see from the example conversation, the fatty already knows that a doughnut has too many calories in it. That knowledge simply does not help to silence the imaginary anthropomorphization of appetite.

[boyaka]

I love the dialogue there! When I'm up in the middle of the night (certain periods when my sleep schedule is off) I have this exact voice in my head, planning to go get a donut from my favorite shop when it opens. Luckily my desire to get in better shape has been keeping this urge under control, but it's amazing how persistent it is at convincing me otherwise.

[ajkjk]

There's obviously more to it than that. For a hypothetical example, if your diet caused your basal metabolism to increase, or for you to excrete more calories without metabolizing them, then it could induce a change in weight compared to a different diet with the same caloric intake.

[redthrowaway]

That would be the calories out and calories in sides of the equation, respectively.

[criddell]

But the calories out side varies among individuals. Bodies aren't 100% efficient at extracting compounds between eating and excreting. Two people can eat the same exact foods, do the exact same exercises, and gain or lose different amounts of weight.

[redthrowaway]

I don't think anyone's seriously claiming that everyone will react the same to diet and exercise, or that "calories in - calories out = weight lost" is the only word on weight loss.

It is, however, the final word.

[ajkjk]

So, you've made - repeatedly - the completely obvious point that, if you can account for every term in the equation, calories in - calories out = change in weight.

Thank you for that. Now if you'd like to adopt the assumption that your audience isn't brainless, let's talk about the interesting point that everyone wants to be talking about: that the 'calories out' number varies for the same 'calories in' number across people, diets, and behaviors.

[WhyDoiPostHere]

And the stored calories, like body fat and glycogen? What side of the equation are those on? And the energy needed to convert complex carbs and protein into glycogen? The energy used converting glycogen to ATP?

If you can demonstrate everywhere the energy comes from and everywhere it goes and where and how it's used in the body, I imagine there's a nobel prize in it for you. There's still a lot we don't know about where all that energy comes from and goes.

[redthrowaway]

>And the stored calories, like body fat and glycogen? What side of the equation are those on?

Weight loss...

>And the energy needed to convert complex carbs and protein into glycogen?

Energy out...

>The energy used converting glycogen to ATP?

Energy out...

The body is complex. Energy in - energy out = weight lost its not.

[CJefferson]

The problem with it is that figuring out 'calories in' and 'calories out' is almost impossible, and there isa huge list of things which effect them.

A statement which is true, but brings almost no information, isn't useful.

[Avshalom]

The problem is that there is basically no way to know calories in or calories out.