Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Weight Loss, Study Says

Post by David Harmon
For people who want to lose weight and boost their heart health,
cutting down on carbohydrates may work better than trimming dietary
fat, a new study suggests.

Is this a study on human psychology, human physiology, medicine or
physics?

I have gained lots of weight and lost lots of weight, and you only need
one principle to explain the process: energy in -- energy out.

Psychological issues are important, of course. Feeling the cravings and
hunger for weeks on end, possibly for the rest of your life!, may be
more than most people can take. Also, it can be socially tricky to forgo
food or drinks because of your diet.

Physiological issues can come in, too. Some people crash or get
headaches unless they maintain a steady blood sugar level.

Medically, you want to be sure you get enough nutrients and don't lose
weight too fast.

Most importantly, don't trust your body. It will do its utmost to make
you fat. I have found it useful to count every calory and put a "price
tag" on different forms of exercise. Nintendo's Wii Fit keeps a record
of the weight every day.

Marko

Lewis

2014-09-03 05:52:32 UTC

Post by David Harmon
For people who want to lose weight and boost their heart health,
cutting down on carbohydrates may work better than trimming dietary
fat, a new study suggests.

Not true. Your body can only use dietary fat for immediate energy needs,
it cannot store it. If you eat only fat, you will 1) lose a lot of
weight very fast and 2) die.

--
I HAVE NEITHER BEEN THERE NOR DONE THAT Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF17

Marko Rauhamaa

2014-09-03 06:29:17 UTC

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
I have gained lots of weight and lost lots of weight, and you only
need one principle to explain the process: energy in -- energy out.

Not true. Your body can only use dietary fat for immediate energy
needs, it cannot store it. If you eat only fat, you will 1) lose a lot
of weight very fast and 2) die.

Still, the equation holds. If you expend more energy than you take in,
you will lose weight. People who are desperately complaining that they
can't seem to lose weight aren't methodical about their calories. Not
blaming them, it can be tough, only stating the thermodynamical truth.

(There are conditions where fluids build up in the body. I'm not
considering that "weight" in the sense of this thread.)

Marko

trader4

2014-09-03 14:27:47 UTC

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
I have gained lots of weight and lost lots of weight, and you only
need one principle to explain the process: energy in -- energy out.

Not true. Your body can only use dietary fat for immediate energy
needs, it cannot store it. If you eat only fat, you will 1) lose a lot
of weight very fast and 2) die.

You seem to believe that all people have identical metabolism. That
isn't true. Some people have metabolic resistance, and are predisposed
to easily gaining weight. I've seen so many people in my lifetime
that struggle to lose weight, aren't eating a lot and they can't lose
weight. Others can eat more food and even though the exercise levels
are about the same, they don't gain weight.

The other factor you ignore is that it's not just the calorie value
of what you eat. If you eat fat, you quickly become satiated and you
remain that way for a long time. If you eat refined carbs, you can eat
a lot more without feeling full and two hours later, with the
resulting oscillation in blood sugar, you're hungry again. That's why
on LC, eg Atkins, you don't have to count calories, you don't feel hungry,
and you lose weight.

The study showed that it works. And those folks were supposed to
consume 40g of carbs a day, but they actually were consuming 130g by
the end of the study and they still lost substantially more weigh than
those counting calories.

Lewis

2014-09-11 06:40:24 UTC

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
I have gained lots of weight and lost lots of weight, and you only
need one principle to explain the process: energy in -- energy out.

Not true. Your body can only use dietary fat for immediate energy
needs, it cannot store it. If you eat only fat, you will 1) lose a lot
of weight very fast and 2) die.

Still, the equation holds. If you expend more energy than you take in,
you will lose weight.

It is simply not that simple. If you deprive your body of sufficient
nutrition, your body slows down its metabolism and goes into
'starvation' mode. If you continue doing this, you will lose weight, but
unless you continue to starve yourself the weight will return (and very
quickly) and will probably exceed your starting weight.

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
People who are desperately complaining that they
can't seem to lose weight aren't methodical about their calories. Not
blaming them, it can be tough, only stating the thermodynamical truth.

Counting calories is a fool's way to try to lose weight. Eliminating
carbs is much better because you can eat as much as you want, your body
doesn’t feel hungry and go into starvation mode, and you lose weigh very
fast.

Eliminating carbs is difficult, though.

--
I WILL NOT SCREAM FOR ICE CREAM Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF03

Marko Rauhamaa

2014-09-11 07:08:57 UTC

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Still, the equation holds. If you expend more energy than you take in,
you will lose weight.

It is simply not that simple. If you deprive your body of sufficient
nutrition, your body slows down its metabolism and goes into
'starvation' mode.

And? What's wrong with the 'starvation mode'? What bodily functions are
left undone?

Post by Lewis
If you continue doing this, you will lose weight, but unless you
continue to starve yourself the weight will return (and very quickly)
and will probably exceed your starting weight.

The solution is to diet (in order to maintain your weight) till the day
you die.

Your body *wants* to get fat again, badly. The moment you stop dieting
and start trusting the instincts, you start getting fat because
overeating will only make you feel good.

Marko

trader4

2014-09-11 12:00:53 UTC

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Still, the equation holds. If you expend more energy than you take in,
you will lose weight.

It is simply not that simple. If you deprive your body of sufficient
nutrition, your body slows down its metabolism and goes into
'starvation' mode.

And? What's wrong with the 'starvation mode'? What bodily functions are
left undone?

What's wrong with starvation mode is that it's virtually impossible for
people to keep up with for even weeks, let alone a lifetime. Hunger is
a powerful, built-in survival mechanism designed to make you eat and
people don't live in cages. When you're counting calories and hungry,
it's almost impossible not to wind up going off the diet. It's like
trying not to drink when your body is screaming for water.

Post by Lewis
If you continue doing this, you will lose weight, but unless you
continue to starve yourself the weight will return (and very quickly)
and will probably exceed your starting weight.

The solution is to diet (in order to maintain your weight) till the day
you die.

Easy to do on LC. Almost impossible to do on low cal, for most people.

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Your body *wants* to get fat again, badly. The moment you stop dieting
and start trusting the instincts, you start getting fat because
overeating will only make you feel good.
Marko

You should try LC and you'll see the remarkable difference. There is no
feeling hungry, no starvation. That is the beauty of it. And that's the
main reason why the people in that study that did LC lost 3 times as much
weight as those on low fat. And they were not even on what I would call
a real LC diet. By the end of a year, they were consuming 130g of carbs
a day. I'd call it reduced carb, but it still worked far better than
low cal.

Lewis

2014-09-11 17:15:53 UTC

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Still, the equation holds. If you expend more energy than you take in,
you will lose weight.

It is simply not that simple. If you deprive your body of sufficient
nutrition, your body slows down its metabolism and goes into
'starvation' mode.

And? What's wrong with the 'starvation mode'? What bodily functions are
left undone?

Starvation mode means your body is deprived of the nutrients it needs to
function normally, so it has to slow down your metabolism to conserve as
much energy as possible. A low metabolism is not good for you, which is
my no responsible person ever recommends just counting calories to lose
weight, you have to also increase exercise to try to keep your
metabolism up.

Post by Lewis
If you continue doing this, you will lose weight, but unless you
continue to starve yourself the weight will return (and very quickly)
and will probably exceed your starting weight.

The solution is to diet (in order to maintain your weight) till the day
you die.

Riiiight. You go right ahead with that then. Seem masochistic to ME
(and, obviously to most people), but whatever flips your skirt.

--
"If you can't do something smart, do something right."

Large Hadron Collider

2019-12-19 08:48:06 UTC

I'm going to be through-quoting this one. I know that doesn't square
well with Usenetiquette but I believe it's necessary.

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Still, the equation holds. If you expend more energy than you take in,
you will lose weight.

It is simply not that simple. If you deprive your body of sufficient
nutrition, your body slows down its metabolism and goes into
'starvation' mode.

You're both semi-wrong. If you attempt to expend more energy than you
take in, without having enough energy in the freezer (or with having the
padlock of high insulin from high carbohydrate diets on the freezer),
your body will catabolise non-essential tissue (muscle is not necessary
for immediate survival and will go away the soonest on a balanced
deficit diet) to make up the energy deficit by reducing the energy
requirement.

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
And? What's wrong with the 'starvation mode'? What bodily functions are
left undone?

You'll get high cortisol. Starvation mode is intended to drive you to
eat. You'll become immunosuppressed because you're starving, so healing
is not considered beneficial to immediate survival. You will feel like
shit on an unrelenting basis. You will become sleep deprived, because
high cortisol steps on your fight/flight/freeze system hardcore. You
will go into heart failure if you keep it up for long enough because
your heart will emaciate, because you can't become hypoleptinemic
(emaciated fat tissue) enough to shunt protein anabolism to heart muscle.

I suggest you check out The Scribble Pad by the Wooo:
https://itsthewooo.blogspot.com/

Especially this search query, and others like "cortisol", and "stress":
https://itsthewooo.blogspot.com/search?q=starvation

Post by Lewis
If you continue doing this, you will lose weight, but unless you
continue to starve yourself the weight will return (and very quickly)
and will probably exceed your starting weight.

The solution is to diet (in order to maintain your weight) till the day
you die.

And then you'll die early, with no hair on your head and probably a
heart attack from the stress of permanently dieting, or heart failure
from wasted muscle tissue. Your blood pressure before you die will be
70/60, you'll be cold as an ice cube, your heart rate will be in the
latrine, and you will have this strange mixture of discontent and
euphoria (the latter more likely if you have female brain wiring and
also female hormones).

It only wants to get so fat though, and you can move that around by
playing with the carbohydrate level. Mine seems to have settled around
the 90-100kg range on an ad-libitum type of ketogenic diet, which is
over my wt for ht (at 5'11"), with very little self starvation (mainly
consisting of exercise, not intentional food restriction)

Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Marko

~Ellenor

--
Wanna make a Tory angry? Tell him the truth.

Wanna make an American conservative angry? Tell him something
truthy, be it true or not. Those guys LIVE ON LIES.

Wanna make a liberal angry... correction, sad? Tell 'em you
believe Conservative bullshit.

Lewis

2014-09-03 05:50:22 UTC

Post by David Harmon
For people who want to lose weight and boost their heart health, cutting
down on carbohydrates may work better than trimming dietary fat,

Well duh, trimming dietary fat does *nothing* for weight loss. Your body
doesn't have a mechanism to convert dietary fat into stored fat, it can
only convert carbohydrates to fat.

You can lose weight by limiting calories, but that starves your body so
you tend to 'rubber band' the weight back on. You can lose weight by
exercising more, but you tend to need more calories, so you eat more
and then you stop exercising and the weight comes back. You can
eliminate carbs which means you can eat anything you want to that
contains no carbs (as much fat and protein as you want), but as soon as
you start eating carbs again, the weight comes back.

So, you can starve yourself of calories, exercise a lot, or eliminate
carbs. Any ne of them will cause you to lose weight, but the worst
choice is limiting calories.

The BEST option seems to be exercise and eliminating carbs.

--
NOTHING IS FINAL. NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE. EXCEPT ME, OF COURSE. SUCH
TINKERING WITH DESTINY COULD MEAN THE DOWNFALL OF THE WORLD. THERE MUST
BE A CHANCE, HOWEVER SMALL. THE LAWYERS OF FATE DEMAND A LOOPHOLE IN
EVERY PROPHECY. --Sourcery

trader4

2014-09-11 12:19:54 UTC