It's been a while, and this subject could use a more in-depth treatment than I have time to give it, but if I don't write a little about it now, it's going to be lost in the void. Anyway, find a forum related to health, nutrition, or fitness, and you won't need to wait long before a very heated debate about carbohydrate (CHO) erupts. They happen here frequently. The debate usually breaks down into two camps: Reduction of dietary CHO is always better - even necessary - for fat loss vs. There is no benefit whatsoever to CHO reduction or limitation. There is a lot of middle ground between these positions, and I think the evidence most justifies an individualized approach. Regardless of the mechanisms for reducing body fat, out in the real world what matters the most is dietary adherence. On the one hand, the unanimous conclusion of controlled, metabolic ward studies is that a calorie deficit is both necessary and sufficient to lose weight. Weight loss is entirely possible even with high-CHO diets. The frequent anecdotal claims that a given person "cannot" lose weight unless CHO is restricted below a certain amount have not been observed under controlled conditions. There is no reason to think the people making those claims are lying, however, so the simplest explanation is that as a strategy for achieving a sustainable, consistent calorie deficit, CHO restriction is effective for those people. Does this mean that low-CHO or ketogenic diets are pointless and should be disregarded? Not at all. While there may not be any "magic" metabolic advantage to low-CHO dieting (there is some evidence that in certain populations such as the insulin resistant, there may be just such an advantage), what ultimately matters the most is a dietary strategy that you can adhere to. Dietary adherence and weight loss success among overweight womenOne group of researchers examined three popular weight-loss protocols: Atkins, the "Zone" diet, and Ornish (a low-fat, relatively high CHO diet). The authors' conclusions are exactly what you would expect, in light of the history of controlled trials: Quote:Regardless of assigned diet groups, 12-month weight change was greater in the most adherent compared to the least adherent tertiles. These results suggest that strategies to increase adherence may deserve more emphasis than the specific macronutrient composition of the weight loss diet itself in supporting successful weight loss. This is an important conclusion - when you want to lose fat, what matters far more than the macronutrient composition of your diet, is simply whether you can stick to it over time. You can lose weight on a low-fat diet, and you can lose weight on a low-CHO diet. But you won't lose weight on a diet that you can't follow. It is for this reason that I cringe when I see advice in a forum that someone looking to lose weight (or plateauing) should simply reduce CHO. Well...maybe. It depends on the individual. I have tried low-CHO dieting in the past and find it completely intolerable. And yet, many people report greater, more consistent satiety and improved mood on low-CHO/keto diets. I have no reason to doubt them, and see no reason why someone should categorically dissuade anyone else from experimenting with different strategies to find whatever is the most sustainable for them - assuming, of course, that the diet in question still meets macro- and micro-nutrient needs. Nor am I aware of any strong evidence that adherence is categorically higher for any particular strategy. Adherence and Success in Long-Term Weight Loss Diets: The Dietary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial (DIRECT)If you look at "figure 2" in this study, you'll see that adherence to the low-CHO, "mediterranean," and low-fat diets all followed roughly the same trends, and didn't differ significantly. Atkins had the highest rate of compliance at 6 months, by a small margin, but the lowest at 12 and 24 months - but only by a small margin. The bottom line, once again, is that there are many paths to reach the same goal, and there are relatively few dietary rules that must be followed in order to reduce body fat. Once those "musts" are satisfied, there is a lot of individual variation in response to different protocols. Because dietary adherence is one of the most significant factors (if not the most significant) in long-term weight reduction success, forcing individual square pegs into dietary round holes is counter-productive. Tailoring a dietary strategy to the individual is the better approach - even if "experiment and see what you like" may not be the answer that people looking for dietary advice want to hear.
|
3040 kcal
|
Rasva: 97,23g | Prot: 193,37g | Hh: 398,96g.
Aamiainen: body fortress whey isolate, optimum casein, quaker oats, soy slender, 2% milk, tomato, kraft colby jack, monster rehab. Lounas: apple, cocoa roast almonds, jack link's original beef jerky, california stir fry, spinach, tomato, eggland's best large, bumble bee salmon. Päivällinen: blueberries, meijer cottage cheese, meijer colby jack, meijer chunky beef. Välipalat/Muut: raspberries, kashi golean crunch, dannon light & fit blueberry, dannon light & fit strawberry, carlson fish oil, dark chocolate dreams, fiber one chewy bar, plum, krema, banana peanut butter, sargento string cheese, kashi golean, extra gum. lisää...
|
|
![](https://m.ftscrt.com/static/images/box/membersicon.gif) Kommentit
This is great, Nimm. And so very true, if you cannot sustain the food plan and exercise for the long term, it just "don't matter" what you do! Adherence is the key!
|
" There is no benefit whatsoever to CHO reduction or limitation. ... It is for this reason that I cringe when I see advice in a forum that someone looking to lose weight (or plateauing) should reduce CHO."
There's no need to cringe. One major benefit of reducing carbs is that you tend to up fats, and fats make you feel full, while carbs spike your blood sugar, then drop it, making you hungry again. So the mechanism behind the weight loss on low cab diets is still calorie reduction, it's just that keeping the carbs down and the fats up means you're likely to be hungry less, and eat less, and adhere more to your diet. So I think you're wrong on the 'benefit'. It exists, and it lies in making it easier to not eat as much...
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: bloodaxe
|
" One major benefit of reducing carbs is that you tend to up fats, and fats make you feel full, while carbs spike your blood sugar, then drop it, making you hungry again."
I disagree. I have had the exact opposite experience, and I think this underscores the point I'm trying to make. I have a much easier time adhering to my diet with higher amounts of CHO in my diet. When they were restricted, I was uniformly hungrier, more irritable, and lethargic. I have heard the same reported by many other people attempting to restrict CHO, and I do not think there is evidence that satiety and hunger ratings are categorically and universally lower during CHO restriction. Furthermore, the second study I linked would contradict your claim that a low-CHO protocol results in greater adherence.
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: Nimm
|
Well, then we'll have to disagree, because my anecdotal evidence is contradictory to your anecdotal evidence, and to your study. I haven't read the study yet, so I don't know how stringent it was, and how many confounding factors might have played a role in their outcome. I'm low carbing, and have only been hungry twice in over a month, both times when I went more than 6 hours awake without eating anything, making it extremely easy to adhere to my diet.
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: bloodaxe
|
I know I'm repeating myself, but - that's the point. Response to dietary macronutrient composition, in terms of satiety, mood, energy level, and training performance is highly individual, and there is no compelling reason to follow a protocol to which you don't respond well, because you're less likely to adhere to it. If you think that low-CHO protocols are categorically superior for mood, energy, satiety, and overall adherence, by all means please present your own data supporting that claim. Otherwise, I don't think there's a disagreement. I have no reason to doubt that you respond better to your diet protocol; I am not claiming there is -any- universally superior strategy. Just the opposite. But given that there are wide variations in insulin sensitivity among individuals, that alone is ample reason to believe that those subjective factors can vary tremendously in response to different diets.
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: Nimm
|
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: JessWhatINeeded
|
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: Bkeller1023
|
Just goes to show that what may work for one may not work for another, so adjusting the macros to what's best for you through experimentation can lead to success as it has done for me. So no, magic answer for everyone, just advice from people who have had success with their own trials and errors. I know what works well for me and that's all that counts despite what any studies say. I'm in better shape than I ever was in my life; muscle tone is up, I'm leaner, I have tons of energy. I can only hope that all of us can find the path that's best for our own selves.
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: CJT1217
|
Thanks, Nimm...you're so right that debates always erupt, and this post proves it once again (lol)...MY plan, and what works "FOR ME" is portion control, with what are considered "healthier food choices", that is, limiting, but NOT totally ELIMINATING "goodies" (cookies, ice cream, all the usual suspects). Add in enough exercise (for me that's a brisk walk at least once a day and a bit of resistance training) to create a 3500 calorie/week deficit, and voila'...a steady weight loss that didn't FEEL like a diet (except for the portion control on the ice cream, lol)...perhaps that's because it's NOT A DIET...it's a lifestyle adjustment, and one that I can live with--for good and forever.
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: Baxie
|
Lifestyle adjustment! I concur. These fad diets are the worst, since as mentioned, compliance is a big issue. Old habits die hard.
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: CJT1217
|
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: jessabridge4444
|
...which all goes back to my first comment; if you cannot sustain it over the long term, it ain't gonna work over the long term! Adherence to the plan of your OWN CHOICE is what generally works.
|
And the gold medal for Editorial Brevity goes to HCB, for saying in 12 words what took me 750. :)
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: Nimm
|
This is particularly timely and interesting for me, as I started my lifestyle change about a week ago. My diet consists of 2 factors, calories burned>calories ingested and variety of foods. I'm increasing exercise & stretching only moderately.
I choose a high carb diet, mainly to help quell food cravings, and after this week, I've found myself rather puzzled, as it's challenging to eat ENOUGH calories daily. I snack frequently, and only have minor hunger,(which I feel is a rather healthy state). I feel like I can continue this diet regimen indefinitely, with the main issue being keeping the fridge full of enough veggies!
Actually, now that I think about it, there is another factor that drives me towards high carbs. In animal care studies, high protein adult diets shorten lifespan (in general). For immature development of course, high protein is desired for growth, but protein ratios are dropped for adult fare. Protein is simply not required for adults and I believe causes excessive stress for many bodily systems.
02 elo 12 jäseneltä: cerobit
|
Nimm, this rocks, and perfectly supports my rationale for focusing on calorie deficit over macronutrient or low-carb emphasis. I am doing what I can sustain, relearning how to eat for a leaner body. Yes, lean protein and veggies get me there faster, but any diet that screams deprivation to me (as Atkins does) isn't right for me. For ME. And that gives me permission to ignore the who's best debate. Thank you again for thoughtful research and insight.
03 elo 12 jäseneltä: Heidijoy
|
"You can lose weight on a low-fat diet, and you can lose weight on a low-CHO diet. But you won't lose weight on a diet that you can't follow." AMEN TO THAT!!! Such a simple and annoying truth, there isn't any quick fix. No miracles, no permanent fat flushes, no easy way out; it is just hard work and perseverance. A very simple and annoying truth that sweats out of our pores as we bust our asses to reach our goals. Amen!!
03 elo 12 jäseneltä: Rubie-sue
|
You know, it's interesting to me that the study showed the low carb diet as having the highest compliance at 6 months and lowest at 12 and 24 months, margins not withstanding. I am about 5 months into a low carb diet and so far I have been loving it but lately my enthsusiam is flagging and I keep wondering, "is it because I always lose steam on a diet around this timeframe or is it because the low carb thing just isn't sustainable over the long haul?"
05 elo 12 jäseneltä: Eringiffin
|
|
|
|
|
Lähetä kommentti
Sinun täytyy kirjautua lähettääksesi kommentin. Klikkaa tätä kirjautuaksesi.
|
|
|
|