Is it carbs or calories?

Gary wrote:
|| I've successfully lost about 75 pounds on the South Beach Diet. I'm
|| wondering WHY it worked/
||
|| THEORY 1: I have assumed this is because lowering my carb intake
|| lowered my appetite, thus I consumed fewer calories and I lost
|| weight.
||

Correct for most people (IMO).

|| THEORY 2: Others have suggested that the act of lowering carbs itself
|| causes you to lose weight.

This may be correct for those who have way, way screwed up metabolisms, but
I think it is mostly #1 (for most people).

||
|| So, does anyone here know which of the two contrasting explanations
|| is correct? Suppose we look at three diets:
||
|| DIET 0 has enough carbs and enough calories to cause you to neither
|| lose or gain weight.
||
|| DIET 1 has 20% fewer carbs but exactly the same number of calories as
|| Diet 0.

Depends. You might still be hungry and thus have a hard time staying on it.
There is a specific level that people need to meet, and I don't think % work
here - grams work best.

||
|| DIET 2 has exactly the same carbs but 20% fewer calories as Diet 0.
||

Most would lose if they can stay on it.

I have been able to lose 100 lbs on a high carb diet with lots of exercise,
but gained it back. I ate lots of tasteless, low fat food.

I have been able to lose 127 lbs on a low carb diet and it has not come back
yet. LC was easier than LF due to less appetite.

|| What would be the weight loss consequences of each diet? If you
|| believe, THEORY 1 (appetite, calories), then DIET 2 would be more
|| successful than DIET 1. If you believe THEORY 2 (carbs), then DIET 1
|| would be more successful than DIET 2.
||
|| Anyone know which THEORY is correct?

YMMV.

Quoted message said:

I've successfully lost about 75 pounds on the South Beach Diet. I'm
wondering WHY it worked

When it comes to putting things in the right order, you *rule*! How
beats why, so you handled how first.

Quoted message said:

THEORY 1: I have assumed this is because lowering my carb intake
lowered my appetite, thus I consumed fewer calories and I lost

weight.

Get in a time machine. Count your calories for the year before you
started. Get out of the time machine. Count your calories for the
next year. Bingo, you have proven or disproven this theory. All else
is speculation at this point. You just don't know what your old
caloric intake was unless you counted back in the day.

Quoted message said:

THEORY 2: Others have suggested that the act of lowering carbs itself
causes you to lose weight.

Phrased more accurately: Low carb tends to increase resting
metabolism. Yup, it sure does, with a twist. The more you have to
lose, the more it's true. By the time you onlyhave 10-20 pounds to
lose the effect drops down towards zero.

Quoted message said:

Anyone know which THEORY is correct?

Both to some extent and at some part of the process. As you have
less and less to lose, theory two applies less and less but at the
start it makes a difference of a couple hundred calories per day.

Quoted message said:

I'm wondering WHY it worked/

A variety of overlapping reasons.

The simplist the insulin/glucagon feedback loop. Eat more carb
and the body's direct response is to release more insulin.
Insulin supresses glucagon and insulin pushes fat towards
storage. Eat more fat and the body's indirect response is to
release more glucagon. Glucagon pulls fat out of storage.

Check out the options:

Low carb, high fat, low insulin, high glucagon, fat flows out.

Low carb, low fat, low insulin, low glucagon, fat tries to
stay put. That's called starvation mode by many and it
is the resting metabolism going down.

High carb, low fat, high insulin, low glucagon, fat flows in
but there isn't enough to supply the flow for a net loss.
This is the mechanism of low fat diets and the good part is
the resting metabolism doesn't go down.

High carb, high fat, high insulin, glucagon gets suppressed
by insulin so it stays low, fat flows into storage. And there
is a supply of fat to move into storage..

There are other levels involved and the topic can cover
several textbooks. The above only explains why low fat
plus low carb does't work very well. There are also
explainations for why staying ultra-low carb doesn't work as
well and so on.

Theory one.

--

Eat less, exercise more. -- MFW

--
"Gary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've successfully lost about 75 pounds on the South Beach Diet. I'm
wondering WHY it worked/

THEORY 1: I have assumed this is because lowering my carb intake
lowered my appetite, thus I consumed fewer calories and I lost weight.

THEORY 2: Others have suggested that the act of lowering carbs itself
causes you to lose weight.

So, does anyone here know which of the two contrasting explanations is
correct? Suppose we look at three diets:

DIET 0 has enough carbs and enough calories to cause you to neither
lose or gain weight.

DIET 1 has 20% fewer carbs but exactly the same number of calories as
Diet 0.

DIET 2 has exactly the same carbs but 20% fewer calories as Diet 0.

What would be the weight loss consequences of each diet? If you
believe, THEORY 1 (appetite, calories), then DIET 2 would be more
successful than DIET 1. If you believe THEORY 2 (carbs), then DIET 1
would be more successful than DIET 2.

Anyone know which THEORY is correct?

I'd say theory one as well. There's a lot of talk about the "metabolic
advantage" of the low carb diet, but I'm not convinced that it's a major
factor, if a factor at all.

In article <[email hidden]>,

JC Der Koenig said:

Theory one.

--

Eat less, exercise more. -- MFW

--
"Gary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've successfully lost about 75 pounds on the South Beach Diet. I'm
wondering WHY it worked/

THEORY 1: I have assumed this is because lowering my carb intake
lowered my appetite, thus I consumed fewer calories and I lost weight.

THEORY 2: Others have suggested that the act of lowering carbs itself
causes you to lose weight.

So, does anyone here know which of the two contrasting explanations is
correct? Suppose we look at three diets:

DIET 0 has enough carbs and enough calories to cause you to neither
lose or gain weight.

DIET 1 has 20% fewer carbs but exactly the same number of calories as
Diet 0.

DIET 2 has exactly the same carbs but 20% fewer calories as Diet 0.

What would be the weight loss consequences of each diet? If you
believe, THEORY 1 (appetite, calories), then DIET 2 would be more
successful than DIET 1. If you believe THEORY 2 (carbs), then DIET 1
would be more successful than DIET 2.

Anyone know which THEORY is correct?

--
---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

Gary said:

I've successfully lost about 75 pounds on the South Beach Diet. I'm
wondering WHY it worked/

I don't know enough about the South Beach Diet to compare with Atkins
but... is it really a low-carb diet? What are the basic rules of South
Beach?

Quoted message said:

THEORY 1: I have assumed this is because lowering my carb intake
lowered my appetite, thus I consumed fewer calories and I lost weight.

THEORY 2: Others have suggested that the act of lowering carbs itself
causes you to lose weight.

So, does anyone here know which of the two contrasting explanations is
correct? Suppose we look at three diets:

DIET 0 has enough carbs and enough calories to cause you to neither
lose or gain weight.

DIET 1 has 20% fewer carbs but exactly the same number of calories as
Diet 0.

DIET 2 has exactly the same carbs but 20% fewer calories as Diet 0.

You are obviously a computer person - counting from ZERO! 🙂

I would say that in the long run only diet 2 will cause you to lose
weight because diets 0 and 1 have the same calories and they maintain
your weight.

Quoted message said:

Anyone know which THEORY is correct?

Conservation of energy is always safe to bet on.

doug

"Gary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've successfully lost about 75 pounds on the South Beach Diet. I'm
wondering WHY it worked/

THEORY 1: I have assumed this is because lowering my carb intake
lowered my appetite, thus I consumed fewer calories and I lost weight.

THEORY 2: Others have suggested that the act of lowering carbs itself
causes you to lose weight.

So, does anyone here know which of the two contrasting explanations is
correct? Suppose we look at three diets:

DIET 0 has enough carbs and enough calories to cause you to neither
lose or gain weight.

DIET 1 has 20% fewer carbs but exactly the same number of calories as
Diet 0.

DIET 2 has exactly the same carbs but 20% fewer calories as Diet 0.

What would be the weight loss consequences of each diet? If you
believe, THEORY 1 (appetite, calories), then DIET 2 would be more
successful than DIET 1. If you believe THEORY 2 (carbs), then DIET 1
would be more successful than DIET 2.

Anyone know which THEORY is correct?

I'm not going to bother calculating. Lower carbs moves your body into a
fat-burning mode. Overall, calories decide whether or not you gain or lose
weight. I confess I can see how it works in my mind, but I don't know if
I'm good at expressing it yet.

This is a very impressive study, and clearly supports THEORY 2. Do
you know if there's any equivalent data for adults?

Ignoramus9727 said:

Gary said:

I've successfully lost about 75 pounds on the South Beach Diet. I'm
wondering WHY it worked/

THEORY 1: I have assumed this is because lowering my carb intake
lowered my appetite, thus I consumed fewer calories and I lost weight.

THEORY 2: Others have suggested that the act of lowering carbs itself
causes you to lose weight.

So, does anyone here know which of the two contrasting explanations is
correct? Suppose we look at three diets:

DIET 0 has enough carbs and enough calories to cause you to neither
lose or gain weight.

DIET 1 has 20% fewer carbs but exactly the same number of calories as
Diet 0.

DIET 2 has exactly the same carbs but 20% fewer calories as Diet 0.

What would be the weight loss consequences of each diet? If you
believe, THEORY 1 (appetite, calories), then DIET 2 would be more
successful than DIET 1. If you believe THEORY 2 (carbs), then DIET 1
would be more successful than DIET 2.

Anyone know which THEORY is correct?

I lean towards theory 2. See this article in medline:

15148063

Sondike S, Jacobson, Copperman. The ketogenic diet increases weight loss but not cardiovascular risk: A randomized controlled trial. J Adolescent Health Care 2000; 26: 91.

Schneider Children?s Hospital in New Hyde Park, N.Y

This study was conducted on overweight children aged 12 to 18. They
were between 20 and 100 pounds overweight. The children were split
into two groups. One group ate a conventional low-fat, carbohydrate
based "slimming" diet composed of whole grains, fruits and vegetables
with fat-free dairy products, low-fat meats, poultry and fish. Their
total intake was limited to 1,100 calories per day. The other group
ate a high-fat, low-carb diet in which they were allowed to eat as
many calories as they wanted in the form of untrimmed meat, cheese,
eggs, poultry and fish. Their carbohydrates came from two salads a day
and minimal other carbs. RESULTS Despite consuming on average 66% more
calories per day, after 12 weeks the children consuming the
low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those following the
low-fat, high-carb plan: Low-carb Low-fat Calorie intake 1830 1100
Weight loss 19 lbs 8.5 lbs HDL Increased Decreased Triglycerides -52%
-10%

As high-protein/fat diets are thought to have adverse effects on
kidneys and liver, kidney and liver functions were regularly
monitored. They were found to be unaffected by this diet.

COMMENT: Six to twelve months later, most of the low-carb dieters had
maintained their new lower weight. This study provides additional
evidence for the efficacy of a low-carb weight loss programme
specifically for the most vulnerable group ? teenagers.

"Gary" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This is a very impressive study, and clearly supports THEORY 2. Do
you know if there's any equivalent data for adults?

I don't see how theory 2 hold any water at all other than forcing glycogen
from the muscles and liver, which is not at all about fat loss, and is what
the real motiviation.

Quoted message said:

Ignoramus9727 said:

Gary said:

I've successfully lost about 75 pounds on the South Beach Diet. I'm
wondering WHY it worked/

THEORY 1: I have assumed this is because lowering my carb intake
lowered my appetite, thus I consumed fewer calories and I lost weight.

THEORY 2: Others have suggested that the act of lowering carbs itself
causes you to lose weight.

So, does anyone here know which of the two contrasting explanations is
correct? Suppose we look at three diets:

DIET 0 has enough carbs and enough calories to cause you to neither
lose or gain weight.

DIET 1 has 20% fewer carbs but exactly the same number of calories as
Diet 0.

DIET 2 has exactly the same carbs but 20% fewer calories as Diet 0.

What would be the weight loss consequences of each diet? If you
believe, THEORY 1 (appetite, calories), then DIET 2 would be more
successful than DIET 1. If you believe THEORY 2 (carbs), then DIET 1
would be more successful than DIET 2.

Anyone know which THEORY is correct?

I lean towards theory 2. See this article in medline:

15148063

Sondike S, Jacobson, Copperman. The ketogenic diet increases weight loss

but not cardiovascular risk: A randomized controlled trial. J Adolescent
Health Care 2000; 26: 91.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Schneider Children?s Hospital in New Hyde Park, N.Y

This study was conducted on overweight children aged 12 to 18. They
were between 20 and 100 pounds overweight. The children were split
into two groups. One group ate a conventional low-fat, carbohydrate
based "slimming" diet composed of whole grains, fruits and vegetables
with fat-free dairy products, low-fat meats, poultry and fish. Their
total intake was limited to 1,100 calories per day. The other group
ate a high-fat, low-carb diet in which they were allowed to eat as
many calories as they wanted in the form of untrimmed meat, cheese,
eggs, poultry and fish. Their carbohydrates came from two salads a day
and minimal other carbs. RESULTS Despite consuming on average 66% more
calories per day, after 12 weeks the children consuming the
low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those following the
low-fat, high-carb plan: Low-carb Low-fat Calorie intake 1830 1100
Weight loss 19 lbs 8.5 lbs HDL Increased Decreased Triglycerides -52%
-10%

As high-protein/fat diets are thought to have adverse effects on
kidneys and liver, kidney and liver functions were regularly
monitored. They were found to be unaffected by this diet.

COMMENT: Six to twelve months later, most of the low-carb dieters had
maintained their new lower weight. This study provides additional
evidence for the efficacy of a low-carb weight loss programme
specifically for the most vulnerable group ? teenagers.

Chris Smolinski said:

I'd say theory one as well. There's a lot of talk about the "metabolic
advantage" of the low carb diet, but I'm not convinced that it's a major
factor, if a factor at all.

For me theory one works. I have insulin resistance/hypoglycemia, and
this woe controls my insulin/blood sugar, cravings, and appetite.
Hopefully it will keep diabetes away, too.

Christy