Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Weight Loss, Study Says
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. They also had bigger improvements in their cholesterol and triglyceride levels, the research team reports in the Sept. 2 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20140...t-health-study |
Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Weight Loss, Study Says
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 |
Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Weight Loss, Study Says
Lewis :
Marko Rauhamaa was all, like: 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 |
Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Weight Loss, Study Says
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 2:29:17 AM UTC-4, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Lewis : Marko Rauhamaa was all, like: 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. 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. |
Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Weight Loss, Study Says
Lewis :
Marko Rauhamaa was all, like: 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? 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 |
Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Weight Loss, Study Says
On Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:08:57 AM UTC-4, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Lewis : Marko Rauhamaa was all, like: 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. 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. 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. |
Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Weight Loss, Study Says
On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 1:50:22 AM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
Okay, so one time? In band camp? David Harmon was all, like: -- Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:08:59 -0700 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. IDK about that. It's the first time I've ever heard that claim. A quick google produces some evidence that dietary fat can be converted into body fat: http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/h...ly-but-simply/ http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=409411 Those probably aren't the definitive sources on the subject, but it's what I could find. I didn't find any reference that says dietary fat can't be converted into body fat. It also sounds unlikely from an evolution standpoint. You would think humans would have evolved so that any source of food can be converted into stored fat for survival. To not be able to store readily available fat from a killed animal would seem to be a potentially fatal flaw. 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. +1 The BEST option seems to be exercise and eliminating carbs. I would rephrase that to a low carb diet and exercise. You don't have to eliminate carbs and that feeds into the classic stereotype that the media and "experts" love to use against LC. They show fridges overflowing with nothing but bacon, steak, and eggs, plates full of meat and not a vegetable or fruit in sight. With the most popular LC plan, Atkins, even from day one you can have 20g of carbs a day. After 2 weeks it's slowly increased as you continue to lose weight. Long term, how many carbs you can have depends on your metabolism. But many can have 100g a day or so with no problems. That's still probably 1/4 of the carbs a typical American has in a day. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
WeightLossBanter