Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TroubleMan

(4,868 posts)
70. Calories is a good starting point,but you're not taking insulin and metabolic syndrome into account.
Tue Dec 3, 2013, 01:22 AM
Dec 2013

I lost over 100 lbs and kept it off for over 2 years now going low carb, and I did not reduce my caloric intake.

"Calories in - Calories out" is a good starting point, but it's more complicated than that. You're exactly right that you can't eat a bunch of crap and lose weight, no matter what the macronutrient content. Additionally it's true that ultra-low-carb reduces your hunger cravings, once you've become adapted to it (more on that below).

However, carbohydrates cause an insulin response in order to lower blood glucose levels. When this happens, you can't burn fat. The key to losing fat (not losing weight, but burning fat) is to keep insulin quiet. When insulin is quiet your body has the chance to free up fat and burn off any FFA's as energy.

Additionally, due to the low fat craze and other factors (such as the conglomeration of food companies that all now look to cut costs and maximize profits to the extreme), all of our foods in the last 20 years have been loaded up with sugar. Things that had fat in them, but weren't bad for you, got modified where they took the fat out and loaded it with sugar to taste better. For the first time in history, our bodies have been ingesting a massive amount of sugar and other carbs, about 10-20 times more, than we have before. This causes a massive amount of insulin to be running through our blood, in amounts that humans never had before.

Because of the constant exposure to insulin in greater amounts since childhood, a large amount of people develop insulin resistance. Their muscles don't refill with glycogen when insulin comes a-calling. However, now that their muscles aren't taking in blood glucose like they used to, in order to keep the person dying from hyperglycemia, insulin shuttles the nutrients into fat. When you're insulin resistant, any caloric intake is more likely to get shuttled into fat storage.

Yes a low-carb diet can reduce your weight by reduced caloric intake - any reduction in calories can temporarily lower your weight. However, a low carb diet eventually improves your insulin sensitivity - your muscles and other non-fat tissues start to demand the nutrients more, and less is shuttled into fat. It also keeps insulin quiet so that you can burn up FFA's for energy instead of redepositing them.

I chose to go low-carb without reducing calories, because I was looking long term. A dramatic lowering of calories can reduce your leptin levels, lower your T3, and reduce your testosterone levels (if you're a man). Depending on how fat you are, you can lower the calories for a long time without those effects (sometimes over several months), but eventually you'll get the negative feedback from lowering them too much.

One more trick that low-carb has going for it is that once you've become keto-adapted (i.e. ketones can now pass the blood-brain barrier), your body will burn off fat and use it for any caloric expenditure you may need for the most part. This is why you have less hunger on a low-carb diet. You didn't actually reduce calories, even though you ate less calories - your body ate the fat right off of you to make up for what you didn't eat (although again the reduced leptin levels will get you eventually, but I digress).

A low carb diet, however, isn't the best for everybody. Everybody's body is different, but seems to be best for about 2/3 of people, especially for the obese.

A great place for reading about this is Dr. Peter Attia's blog - he delves deeply into the science of it:
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
http://eatingacademy.com/

Off subject, but somewhat germane, if you're into the science of biochemistry at the cellular level, his series on cholesterol, in my opinion, is a masterpiece. It's hours of reading, but it's well worth it. If you're interested, start here:
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Hear, hear! k&r n/t Laelth Dec 2013 #1
Thanks, Laelth! supernova Dec 2013 #2
I have been convinced since about 1997 that Atkins was right. Laelth Dec 2013 #74
Are those deep fried balls of fat? immoderate Dec 2013 #3
Swedish Meatballs supernova Dec 2013 #4
Thanks. immoderate Dec 2013 #5
SM are good! supernova Dec 2013 #6
+1. n/t Laelth Dec 2013 #75
Maybe nasty IS delicious. longship Dec 2013 #7
I sub minced mushroom for cracker or bread crumbs. Works great. AtheistCrusader Dec 2013 #11
Mushrooms are a good option supernova Dec 2013 #12
I've seen some recipes that add in quinoa or cheese instead of the breadcrumbs. n/t woodsprite Dec 2013 #19
Cheese is good quinoa is a no go supernova Dec 2013 #23
Rats!!! I thought quinoa was a 'safer' choice :( woodsprite Dec 2013 #29
Ouch! supernova Dec 2013 #34
LOL mzmolly Dec 2013 #22
Gotta start somewhere BillfromIL Dec 2013 #8
welcome to DU - similar journey for me... NRaleighLiberal Dec 2013 #9
Welcome--what a great first post!!! And good for YOU... MADem Dec 2013 #10
Welcome to DU, BillfromIL supernova Dec 2013 #13
Welcome to DU! LeftofObama Dec 2013 #15
Thank You For Sharing cantbeserious Dec 2013 #18
Wow, that is fantastic... CoffeeCat Dec 2013 #33
Don't apologize for giving me inspiration, Bill! Not Sure Dec 2013 #35
Welcome to DU. davidwparker Dec 2013 #50
+1 GeorgeGist Dec 2013 #77
Welcome to DU KurtNYC Dec 2013 #83
Congrats and welcome Doctor_J Dec 2013 #85
Thanks to all for the warm welcome and kind words. BillfromIL Dec 2013 #93
great! Locrian Dec 2013 #14
That would be nice supernova Dec 2013 #16
Yay! Time to move to the next miracle diet! jeff47 Dec 2013 #17
Wow, you're completely missing the point supernova Dec 2013 #21
Nope. I'm not. jeff47 Dec 2013 #27
And the tired old meme of calories in, calories sense Dec 2013 #30
And here comes the extreme situations, declaring themselves the normal case. jeff47 Dec 2013 #32
Type ll is not extreme, it's epidemic. sense Dec 2013 #37
It's extreme because you're treating an underlying medical condition. jeff47 Dec 2013 #61
Obviously you haven't viewed it. sense Dec 2013 #71
The fact that they don't talk about calorie restriction does not mean calorie restriction is jeff47 Dec 2013 #80
There is no calorie restriction. sense Dec 2013 #90
If I eat 5000 calories of low-carb food a day, I will die from being overweight. jeff47 Dec 2013 #91
HFLC isn't about eating mostly plants. That may be your agenda. sense Dec 2013 #94
I think you just won for dumbest argument. jeff47 Dec 2013 #97
Confirmation. sense Dec 2013 #98
Here's the problem though supernova Dec 2013 #39
8% is an outlier. jeff47 Dec 2013 #62
You really are missing the point supernova Dec 2013 #66
No, I get the point. You're missing what will happen when marketing gets a hold of it. jeff47 Dec 2013 #82
Nice post santroy79 Dec 2013 #46
Oh, we understand him/her perfectly supernova Dec 2013 #49
And there's science behind low-fat too. jeff47 Dec 2013 #63
Actually, the "science" behind sense Dec 2013 #72
No, the science behind it as a weight loss system is still just fine. jeff47 Dec 2013 #79
thank you for the welcome santroy79 Dec 2013 #68
miracle diet.........maybe. BillfromIL Dec 2013 #53
Except it isn't a low-carb diet that does that. jeff47 Dec 2013 #60
Calories is a good starting point,but you're not taking insulin and metabolic syndrome into account. TroubleMan Dec 2013 #70
Great post! sense Dec 2013 #73
You touched on the point I've been trying to make jeff47 Dec 2013 #81
Actually there's several manufacturers already doing that. Your fear has already been realized. TroubleMan Dec 2013 #89
How bout "whole diet" or any other label that actually encompases the most important detail? jeff47 Dec 2013 #92
The Allopaths once again take another hit. - K&R n/t DeSwiss Dec 2013 #20
Most people on LCHF supernova Dec 2013 #25
At one point I was taking 8 prescriptions daily. DeSwiss Dec 2013 #58
Great! sense Dec 2013 #95
Indeed. DeSwiss Dec 2013 #96
Come on, no more Ikea ginger snaps?? klook Dec 2013 #24
LOL! supernova Dec 2013 #28
Here's a yummy replacement: sense Dec 2013 #31
Yep. Atkins was right. stopbush Dec 2013 #26
He certainly had the basic concept right supernova Dec 2013 #36
I dropped 50 pounds on Atkins about 15 years ago. stopbush Dec 2013 #41
Just a fad revisited BlueinOhio Dec 2013 #42
Wow, 1000 lbs of ignorance in less than 70 words. supernova Dec 2013 #44
funny Locrian Dec 2013 #45
Perhaps you missed the part where the Gov. sense Dec 2013 #51
They must be doing something right bucolic_frolic Dec 2013 #38
Thumbs up! BrotherIvan Dec 2013 #40
Glad to see your family supernova Dec 2013 #47
Absolutely! BrotherIvan Dec 2013 #54
That's essentially my diet, and I've not been in such good shape closeupready Dec 2013 #43
Glad that you are supernova Dec 2013 #48
So, Atkins was right, after all..... Th1onein Dec 2013 #52
I hope he would be supernova Dec 2013 #55
I have been mostly on low-carb for about 40 years. djean111 Dec 2013 #56
Congratulations! BrotherIvan Dec 2013 #57
Congrats X2 BillfromIL Dec 2013 #59
Interesting -- I have the same results with a low-fat, moderate-carb diet. klook Dec 2013 #78
Mrs. 1SBM ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #64
Congrats to Mrs 1SBM supernova Dec 2013 #67
I know she does ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2013 #69
That has been my experience Lydia Leftcoast Dec 2013 #65
all diets are doomed to fail Skittles Dec 2013 #76
Personally, I don't refer to HCLF as "diet" supernova Dec 2013 #84
Well played supernova BillfromIL Dec 2013 #86
of course it is a diet Skittles Dec 2013 #87
That seems consistent with the glycemic index kristopher Dec 2013 #88
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Sweden Becomes First West...»Reply #70