6 High Carb and Low Carb Diets Equal for Weight Loss – Answer
#6 – High carb and low carb diets are equally effective for weight loss
Answer: TRUE
The ratio of carbs, to fats, to protein in your diet has nothing to do with your ability to lose weight, and specifically to lose body fat.
You can lose weight just as easily and just as fast eating mostly carbs, vs mostly protein and fat…as long as you’re in a caloric deficit (are you recognizing the theme here)
The idea that there is some special way to lose weight by manipulating your macronutrient ratios is a concept borrowed from bodybuilders.
In the last 24-48 hours before a bodybuilding show a bodybuilder tries to get rid of as much body water retention as possible by using diuretics and changing how much carbs or fats they are eating. This is largely a trial and error process and each bodybuilder comes up with a slightly different pattern to follow in the days leading up to a show.
These types of manipulations only have an effect on these guys for a day or two and are meant to help make their muscle definition show through even more severely while they are on stage.
The only reason this sort of thing makes any difference at all is because these guys have already dieted down and removed all of the fat from their bodies before they even start doing this sort of manipulation.
For you and I and just about everyone else who is never going to compete in a bodybuilding show, this sort of nutrition ratio combining is completely unnecessary.
And all of this is a moot point if you’re not eating in a calorie deficit.
John
16 Responses to “6 High Carb and Low Carb Diets Equal for Weight Loss – Answer”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Login
Register
A password will be e-mailed to you.-
-
Build A Perfect Body -
Estimate the circumference around
your shoulders and waist. EAT STOP EAT
Stop Dieting and Start LivingTRUTH ABOUT PROTEIN
November 24th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Aren’t there studies that show low-carb diets work better over other diets for fat loss?
As well as improving other health markers as well.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
As everything those studies are taken out of context to get the results youre looking for. The reason why low carb diets, seem to work, its because if you only eat protein and fat, you get fuller faster, and for longer periods of time, and you end up eating less calories without realising. On the other hand, carbs, specially simple carbs are known to be absorved really quickly and youre hungrier more ofter, and end up eating more. Thats why it might seem that low carbs work better, but the truth is that they trick you into eating less….
So far i have 6 out of 6 correct
November 24th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Josh,
There are very few studies in this field that show any appreciable weight loss that is sustained after the study is over and people are left to fend for themselves.
The good studies that are done on low carb vs a standard low fat type of diet show the exact same effect on weight loss. And when you look at the total number of calories the people ate in each group it is the same. So the bottom line and the only thing that ever matters is total calories.
Mike GP – you’ve hit the nail on the head.
It’s the way high sugar foods make you feel and how easy it is to over eat them that makes them seem like they are somehow worse. (I think the effect might actually be just as much psychological as physiological)
Think of it this way, a massive bowl of vegetables and salad that can fill you up to the point that your stomach hurts probably only has 300-400 calories in it…but 1 choc chip cookie from your favorite coffee shop will have the same if not more calories.
The bowl of veggies will leave you feeling full waaay longer than that one little cookie, but they both have a similar amount of stored energy. And the sugar and fat content of the cookie stimulates the pleasure center of your brain similar to a drug like cocaine.
I actually think it’s just a matter of disbelief…most of us simply cannot or will not accept that something as small as a cookie has just as much if not more calories than a giant bowl of veggies/salad or some other less dense food.
go to starbucks website and check out the nutrition info on their food items…you’ll be shocked at how many calories you can get out of a little blueberry square or a latte.
A latte (with no whip cream and half sweet) and a small blueberry square will still add up to around 600-700 calories! And many people will have this on their way to work (not including breakfast, lunch and dinner)
JB
November 24th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I’m not entirely convinced that what you say is true. I agree that it is possible to lose weight on any diet, so long as you’re in a caloric deficit. But there is this study that just came out. It’s very long, but it’s really worth the watch, IMO. All of the diets had roughly similar kCal intake, but the low carb group lost more weight. Additionally, they had several favorable changes to their blood chemistry, cholesterol, etc., that were not seen in other diets.
Curious to see your thoughts on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo
November 24th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Thanks for the reply, John.
If calories are all that matter, what part, if any, do hormones have to play in weight? (insulin, leptin, cortisol)?
I’ve always been a bit confused that since calories are all that matter, why do those topics even come into discussion; other people in the health & fitness industry seem to think they play at least a minor role.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Andrew,
Without reviewing the research I can say that there are many ways a research paper can show a greater degree of weight loss without that really meaning fat loss.
Body water/water retention is a big issue that also contributes to body weight and different types of foods and different dietary interventions may influence this.
Also subjects in weight loss studies are notorious for lying about what they are doing and following the actual rules of the study (as the guy in the video points out) so all human weight loss study results need to be taken with a grain of salt to be sure.
Without seeing the individual data and how they did their statistics I cannot really comment on any results. If he says one group lost more weight, I would trust his measurement, but I don’t really trust the people in the study to have done exactly as they were told.
Favorable blood chemistry changes are also nice to see, but most diets will show something in a positive direction as long as the people actually followed at least some of the advice given. But this is somewhat of a moot point as it’s rare to find someone who is regularly active and eating a sensible amount of calories who has unhealthy looking blood chemistry profiles.
Anyone who is successful at losing weight will also most likely have favorable blood chemistry changes no matter what intervention they used for weight loss.
For the short time that it takes to lose weight (12-16 weeks perhaps) I don’t think worrying about specific food items and blood chemistry and if there is a particular way to eat in order to lose an extra pound or two really matters.
Do you see what I am getting at here? If in fact there is a way to manipulate carbs/fat/protein ratios to make weight loss work any better it is still a minor influence if its worth anything at all.
The thing that this video shows more than anything else is that weight loss is freakin’ hard to do and most people give up before they’ll ever have a chance to worry about protein and carb content of their diet. This is clearly evidence by how poor the scientific literature is with weight loss research as well as the high drop out rates many of the weight loss studies experience.
It is simply unrealistic to expect people to worry about protein/carb/fat ratios for any extended period of time without clinical supervision and some sort of paycheck on the line (most people in these types of studies get paid some amount of cash to be in them).
In my opinion the simplest approach that people can actually implement into their lives without turning their life into a weight loss study is the best one. And for me that is ‘eat less calories and enjoy the food you eat’. The minute we start thinking and worrying about nutrient ratios and meal timing and all of that stuff, food ceases to be something we can enjoy. At this point it instead becomes a source of stress that might cause even worse health consequences if we don’t get control of our relationship with food and learn to enjoy it again.
I hope this clarifies my position on this topic.
JB
November 25th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Josh,
These topics come up so fitness/nutrition marketers have something to write about and something to sell you. and also for researchers to study. The clinical research on weight loss is showing more than anything that people simply do not want to eat less food and will give up on most weight loss programs no matter what the intervention is. So since we know people simply don’t have the discipline to eat less food, researchers are hoping to find the magic bullet hormone or neurotransmitter that they can study and put into a pill and the sell to all the overweight people. So far nothing has stood up to the test of science.
Think about it the other way around.
Do people who are thin/lean and ‘in shape’ read about this stuff or care about this stuff. Do you think people who don’t have a weight problem just magically know how to mix and match carbs, and control their insulin with correct carbohydrate and meal timing choices, and pay attention to protein content and actually think about eating for things like cortisol control? <– not likely.
All these people do is eat until they are satisfied and don’t over eat. Thats it. But that is a pretty weak story to sell a product around.
So fitness/nutrition marketers continue to bring up meaningless arguments about things like cortisol and leptin and a bunch of other irrelevant factors for people who want to lose weight to chew on (haha, pardon the pun, I couldn’t help myself there)…when the real answer is just less calories.
JB
November 25th, 2009 at 1:32 am
[...] High Carb and Low Carb Diets Equal for Weight Loss [...]
November 25th, 2009 at 6:54 am
John,
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply!
I think that many of your concerns and questions regarding this particular study would be answered with a full look at the video. However, it is quite long and I know you’re a busy guy, so I’ll gladly give you a break on that one
“In my opinion the simplest approach that people can actually implement into their lives without turning their life into a weight loss study is the best one. And for me that is ‘eat less calories and enjoy the food you eat’.”
I absolutely agree. Most people don’t have the discipline to follow a diet, even if it works. The only thing I wonder about this approach is if it is actually any easier to adhere to in the long-term than a traditional diet. For most people, the foods they enjoy eating are incredibly energy-dense and people will still overestimate exactly how much of it they are eating unless they begin to micromanage it. How often do people actually limit themselves to just two Oreos? Not very often, and each serving is 150 calories. I believe that for many foods, not just snacks and sweets, it’s exceedingly difficult to limit intake. Many foods just don’t fill you up or keep you feeling full for a long time. That makes it that much harder to simply eat less calories when you are constantly feeling hungry.
Thanks again for the response.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:46 am
A lot of people look at an abstract like this one http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/5/899S and don’t see the problems with it. Low carb did lose more weight but what if you carb depleted just for the last two or three days at the end of the 12 week cycle like a bodybuilder and you allowed the low carb to eat carbs for the last couple of days. Weight loss would probably be the same. Losing five pounds while carb depleting over a couple days is not very difficult. Putting on five pounds after carb restricting for a long period of time is pretty simple too.
I love this part;
“Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.”
Why bring up satiety unless it meant one group (carb eaters) ended up consuming more calories and were unable to maintain their diet as easily?
Sounds like one side ate more calories.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
John, when you say that weight loss takes 12-16 weeks, I assume that you are referring to people who have, maybe, 20-30 pounds to lose? I know your philosophy is to lose weight quickly, but what about people who have a significant amount of weight to lose? I’m about 255 pounds, and I estimate that I need to lose ~70-85 pounds to have a decent physique. I doubt I can do that in 3-4 months!
I think that Andrew and John are both right about high calorie foods. It’s true that if one is in a calorie deficit eating pizza and doughnuts, one will lose weight. But it’s also true that calorie-dense foods are hard *not* to overeat. I know their proponents would argue to the contrary, but that’s probably the main reason for the success of a low carb or low fat or Paleo or vegan diet: with any of the aforementioned diets, one is potentially reducing or eliminating a lot of foods that contain massive amounts of calories.
Interesting comments about hormones, chemicals, etc. I’m certainly no expert, but I tend to think that weight loss is more behavioral than anything.
John, what do you think about the set point theory? As an overweight person, that’s probably the scariest idea I can imagine!! There is one set point proponent I know of who actually thinks that overweight people don’t eat any more than other people! lol. I know for certain that I eat more than the average person. You make an interesting point about studies showing that people simply don’t want to eat less. A set point proponent might say that that’s the body trying to get back to their set point. Obviously this is unscientific layman’s speculation, but I’ve wondered if it’s more like a “calorie set point” than a body weight set point. I find that I tend to eat about the amount of calories that keeps me about 255, give or take. On the surface, it could seem like a set point, but I think it’s just the amount of calories that I like to eat. Although if I really let myself go, I can put on more weight. My highest weight is 267 pounds.
November 25th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Marco,
Great points. It is scientifically irresponsible to ever quote a single study and assume that the results mean anything to a broader population. This unfortunately is exactly what the media does when they have a headline that says “New study shows…”
It is always the weight of all the evidence that must be considered before anything meaningful can be said about an area of research.
It’s kinda like watching one football game of the season when the detroit lions actually win and assume that they are the best team (without ever being exposed to their other 15 losses)…this is just about the same ridiculous conclusion that people come to when they see and hear about one study…and its’ even worse when they quote the abstract as it is not peer reviewed (don’t get me started about this!)
Thanks for the comment.
JB
November 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Jordan,
Don’t be scared…set point theory is a load of BS. First of all if set point theory had any genetic basis at all why would people have a ‘set point’ that is in a measurably unhealthy range.
Also only overweight people worry about or talk about ‘set point’ theory. Thin people don’t talk about it or read about it, and probably have never even heard about it.
You haven’t been 255 pounds your whole life, you’ve probably gradually got there. As you said you were even heavier than this at some point, and I’m sure you’ve been much lighter than this at some point.
Set point theory is a way for people to explain away their inability to lose weight.
I’ll say it again: Losing weight isn’t easy. It’s kinda hard, and it kinda sux. But once you’ve lost it, it’s much easier to maintain a lower body weight.
Also, think about set point in relation to your environment. Do you think if you were poor and living in a third world country with minimal food that you would really be 255 pounds…I’ll bet you would be about 155 pounds!
Set point theory people neglect to think that our environment of food abundance is the bigger issue with weight gain and not anything to do with ‘set points’.
JB
November 25th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
John, I totally agree. I don’t think my “set point” is 255. I know I eat too much. But it’s still a disturbing theory, I must admit. lol.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Marco, thanks for that study link. It was a good read! You make a great point about pointing out the problems with caloric intake studies. Definitely need to look at the numbers behind it.
RE: Satiety
I think satiety is worth mentioning because it helps determine how long people can stay on a particular diet. If you can eat 1200-1500 calories per day, and not feel hungry, you’re not going to be completely miserable and will tolerate a caloric deficit longer. IMO, that’s why low-carb and higher fat/protein diets *can* work better (not always) because they tend to keep people feeling fuller than carbohydrates do — at least, they do for me and countless other people. On the other hand, if you’re constantly hungry and still eating 1500 calories per day, eventually, you’re going to cave in and go bananas. Or, on a more regular basis, you’re going to eat more calories in an attempt to stave off the hunger.
“Losing five pounds while carb depleting over a couple days is not very difficult. Putting on five pounds after carb restricting for a long period of time is pretty simple too.”
If it really is a simple matter of calories in vs. calories out, and going back to carbs packs on the pounds more quickly, doesn’t that point to the efficacy of low carb diets? That, too, ties into satiety. It’s easy to overeat on those carbs and put all that weight right back on because they just don’t do the trick like proteins and fats do. On the other hand, it’s hard(er) to overdo it on 6 oz of chicken breast and a teaspoon of olive oil with 3 cups of broccoli.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:27 am
Recycled Building Material News – Salvaged Recycled Building Materials – Green Building…
Get the latest news about how Reclaimed Recycled Salvaged Building Materials are finding their way into modern green building design and green remodeling projects. Sustainable businesses are turning to Recycled Building Materials for their designs….