Sixty Fiver

Whoosh.

carnivroar

Biochemistry man, biochemistry.

RJM

Hmmm. I had a visit with a nutritionist recently (first time ever) and she told me that she wanted me to stick with a 50% carb, 30% fat, 20% protein diet. Basically, she wants me to count carbs and make sure I am between 30-60 grams per meal. So much conflicting info out there.

Sixty Fiver

My wife and I don't count calories and weight loss was one of her primary goals... a few random counts suggested that she was eating 2000-2300 calories a day and losing weight on this very low carb diet whereas she had gained weight on calorie reduced diets that were higher in carbs and lower in fats.

I think that someone should stick a fork in the calorie reduction theory and focus on what people are eating that is preventing them from enjoying optimal health.

The bottom line is that if you want your body to effectively burn excess fat you have to cut back on the carbs.

Spld cyclist

And here is an alternative view: 11 Reasons People Think Calories Don?t Count ? And Why They?re Wrong

Going back to the article posted by sixty fiver, the author makes the following statement in arguing against caloric restriction: The majority of people who lose weight through calorie restriction will need to eat the same diet for the rest of their life to maintain that weight loss. Ask yourself if you are prepared to do that the next time you decide to go on a diet.

The problem with "dieting" in the US is that advocates for particular diets (who often authors of books on dieting, as in this case) claim that there is some magic formula or secret that will make it easy to lose weight. The secret is that there isn't a secret. We are also bombarded with messages that we can lose weight fast by following some formula. Unfortunately, and not surprisingly, people who diet tend to believe these things and have their hopes crushed when they fail to lose weight, or they lose a little bit and gain more back.

The truth is that permanently losing weight is difficult. So back to the quote above. Yes, to lose weight and maintain that loss, you need to prepare yourself to make permanent changes in what you eat and (in many cases) how much physical activity you engage in. If you're overweight, it probably took you years to get that way, and you have deeply engrained, even subconscious, patterns of biology and behavior that conspire to keep you in that state. You need to relearn how, and how much, to eat and how much to move. But whatever changes you make need to be something you are willing to live with for years, and maybe forever. People setting out to lose a significant amount of weight should be armed with this knowledge.

The author goes on to claim that losing weight through "caloric restriction" means that the dieter needs to continue to diet forever. This isn't true. Re-learning how to eat over a period of time allows an individual to bring calories consumed into balance with calories burned. Eventually, one can just eat intuitively and get the balance right. The final point I would make is that the author talks about changing "setpoints" and how that is impossible through caloric restriction. From my own experience, my body used to want to be around 180 - 185 pounds. Now it wants to be around 170. I got this way through reducing portions, cutting down on junk food, and increasing activity. However, my diet has always been fairly high carb, and continues to be. Now I know where the balance is in terms of what I eat and how much activity I need. I mostly eat what I want and never go to bed hungry. I'm not dieting, yet I'm maintaining weight loss in a way that the author doesn't believe is possible. I didn't need to totally remake my diet or abandoned any foods I really enjoy. (I've been fortunate never to have been massively overweight, but at my max I was 30 pounds more than I am now, and went up and down a number of times over 20+ years).

Machka 

+1

elcruxio

You are completely wrong but you do have a point. Excess carbs contain a lot of calories so that's where people should cut their calorie intake. Getting to 200 grams a day is a pretty nice amount as that is 40% of 2000 calories. Protein should be 100grams or less depending on body size and need. The rest is then fat. And we are on a 2000 calorie diet where a normal active person should lose weight.

It doesn't matter what magical mumbo jumbo you believe about weight loss. The human body cannot work outside the laws of physics. I mean do you see a lot of obese people in third world countries? No, even though their diets are usually mostly carb based. They just eat less. In europe there is less obesity than in the US mostly due to a healthier food culture (mediterranean diet) and still lot's of carbs are being eaten.

It's not about the carbs. It's about food abuse and sadly most bad for you foods tend to be fat and carbs. Or red meat, fat and carbs. And people reading the pseude scientific books about non consensus (or not yet consensus at times, medicine needs to be safe so it's not easilly swayed by fashionable things like low carb) studies are all like "omg gluten, carbs, a1 dairy, vegetable oils etc. etc." Are all going to kill us.

But honestly at least the european food recommendations are pretty awesome. At least the scandinavian non biased ones. Plate model is 50% veggies. That should say something.

Sixty Fiver

I meant to say we don't count calories... but we do check the carbs at 30 grams a day for my wife and I stay under 100 grams / day.

Remember that this is the low carb, paleo weirdo's thread...

These weirdos are doing just fine and the results would show that we're not completely wrong and at least we can agree on the vegetables as being a significant part of a healthy diet.

Eating less is not the key, eating well is and for us, eating well means that our diet is not dependent on carbs as a primary fuel source.

carnivroar

Defend carbs all you want. That's perfectly fine. I don't believe low-carb/ketosis is the only way to go. But please, stop propagating the myth that saturated-fat/cholesterol/red-meat are bad for health.

WFRTony

Really??? I thought the human body worked within the laws of biology and physiology...

I rode two gravel centuries in May. I didn't win any race or set any record, but I finished both races in the middle of the pack. I have been eating low carb for almost two years and I know I am faster and stronger than when I was eating sugar and grains.

bikebreak

Yes, the Gov food plan graphic is missing the knife.
How can you cut your steak without a knife?!?

Apparently their protein is not meat, but tofu or beans.

Below are 1943 and 1945 government food charts. Yes, 70 years ago the government was telling us to eat butter and eggs, along with everything else. Well, everything we could get - eggs and meat were rationed, but the gov was recommending that we eat them when we could.

I use these for teaching prenatal nutrition to emphasize diversity in diet. (I am not a nutritionist, but I am a certified childbirth educator).

elcruxio

What's your average speed?

IronHorseRiderX

The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease - WSJ

Carbonfiberboy 

The article notes state that Nina Teicholz is the author of a book promoting the ideas in the reviewed study. While no link to the study is given in this article, I found the full text here:
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease

Several errors in this paper have now been corrected, and not all the authors agree on the conclusion:
Scientists Fix Errors in Controversial Paper About Saturated Fats | Science/AAAS | News

This 2004 paper is rather interesting also:
Saturated fat prevents coronary artery disease? An American paradox

Kingby

I am a High Fat/Low Carb/Moderate Protein (HFLCMP) eater. On my 39th birthday, I was 265lbs and I said enough is enough, I want to keep up to my kids, have energy for life and get faster on the bike. I am turning 41 later this years and I am currently 184lbs (I am 6'3" for reference) and I have never felt healthier (I am faster on the bike that when I was in my 20's too).

Weight is all about diet with exercise only providing a supporting role (exercise is really about adding/maintaining to overall health (mental and physical), physical abilities and functional abilities). I did not count calories to lose weight. I radically changed my approach to food. I ate when I was hungry, and did not eat when I wasn't. It took a couple of months to get in tune with myself to figure this out. In fact it is not uncommon for me to fast for a half day or day, simply because my body is not hungry. HFLCMP was the key in me being able to do this with cravings gone and clear messages about my body's need for fuel.

I eat high fat (nuts, fermented high fat dairy, olive oil, animal fats...) moderate protein (red meat, poultry and fish) and lower carb (basically cut grains, tubers and starches and keep to fruit and veggies only).

Although straight laws of thermodynamics says you are at steady weight equilibrium when calories in = calories expended, this is only true for a closed system. Our bodies are open systems with a lot complex biochemistry going on. Although I believe calories in vs calories out is MOSTLY true, there are a few other things going on here. One of the key missing items in the article quoted (although they touch on Hormones a little) is the insulin response of the body (both the insulin secretion and the insulin resistivity of the cells). This response has a key difference in how the body reacts sourcing its fuel stores. High insulin secretion and high insulin sensitivity (which is a typical response to a chronic high carb diet) results in the body storing excess glucose as fat and relying on the glycogen stores to feed the physical systems through glycogenolysis. When the glycogen stores start to become depleted this triggers the hunger response (as opposed to turning to the fat stores) and the cycle continues and gets worse if we keep dumping high carb fuel into ourselves.

HFLC diets restrict the carbs available and the body adapts to burning fat as the primary source of fuel (through a Gluconeogenesis conversion process to glucose or ketogenisis to ketones if the body has a very low carb intake and is fully adapted to fat conversion). This leaves the glycogen stores available for higher intensity short term efforts. The insulin response is curbed and the body has no problem releasing stored fat as fuel. And since the body (even the skinniest racer) has a significant amount of energy storage as fat, the body has a longer term supply and thus delaying the hunger response.

So although calorie in vs calorie out is MOSTLY true and can be used as a tool for weight loss, the macro nutrient ratios, will absolutely trigger different physiological systems to engage, and have a significant impact on ability to lose weight, manage hunger and affect fuel storage (Fat deposit) within the body.

My 2 cents from a successful self experiment turned into lifestyle change.

Kingby

Some more reading on this Do calories matter? « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.

His take on cholesterol is really eye opening. Its a 9 part series, so it takes a little time, but well worth reading. Whether you fully accept it or not, it does give you a lot of food for thought on the current state of "Science" when it come to nutrition and nutritional studies on all sides of the arguments.

Found here https://eatingacademy.com/category/cholesterol-2

Spld cyclist

Calories in vs. calories out is always true. The question is, how much does the number of calories input, or macronutrient ratios making up the calorie input, affect the number of calories burned? That's the real issue for debate.

Sixty Fiver

You cannot apply the laws of thermodynamics to an open system... and mostly true is still false.

The discussion should and is about the macronutrient ratios of a LCHF / Paleo way of eating and how that affects calorie usage but too many people will try to side track this with that false logic.

Spld cyclist

Can you explain to me how the human body is an "open system" thermodynamically? We absorb energy through eating. We burn energy through metabolic processes (including base metabolism and energy used in activities). We excrete organic matter, which contains energy (waste products or material never digested). I acknowledged above that there is a question as to whether the number of calories, or macronutrient ratios, may affect how many calories are burned. That doesn't mean that energy can be magically created or destroyed in the human body. Calories do matter.

Edit: To clarify, when I say that the number of calories consumed may influence the number of calories burned, I believe that such changes are explainalbe by known mechanisms. E.g., people may unconciously adjust their activity level in subtle ways in response to a calorie deficit or surplus, or base metabolism may drop significantly in response to severe deficits. I can't totally discount that a a change in calories burned might result from a change in macronutrient ratios. However, I don't see any compelling evidence that a consistent calorie deficit doesn't result in fat loss.

Carbonfiberboy 

Exactly. Every RCT I've read indicates that those on an ad libitum high fat diet consume fewer calories than those on other diets and thus lose more weight. If the subjects are under supervision and all macronutrient ratios contain exactly the same calories, there is no difference in weight loss or gain between similar subjects on different macronutrient ratios.

Kingby

Yes... I agree. The laws of Thermodynamics cannot be broken. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred/converted. However the simple approach of a Calorie in = Calorie out, ignores many dependent and independent parameters that complicate the right side of the equation. The simple (and I argue the flawed approach of you want to lose weight) ignores this, preach calories in = calories out and people are failing miserably in losing weight and getting healthier. Lets look at the equation a little closer.

FATNESS = What we eat - What we expend

to refine a little more

The amount of energy we store as fat or store as glycogen = (What we eat) - (Digestion + Exercise + Regular Daily Activity + Basal Expenditure)

I am not arguing that this law of TD be broken, I argue that there are inter-dependencies between what we eat and each of the expenditure items in brackets.

Couple of examples: 1) What we eat affects how much energy is required to digest it. 2) When we exercise, our body needs to tap into a fuel source. What we eat dictates what metabolic function is used to supply the energy and what fuel is used (Glycogen stores vs Fat stores; and glucose fuel vs ketone fuel). In turn our body needs to replenish depleted fuel stores through triggering an eating response. That eating response is quite different depending on the fuel source used and that again in turn affects our cravings and what we ultimately eat.

In the end left side equals right side, but the cycles and inter-dependencies of the parameters on the right side can affect each other a lot and will ultimately require a different number on the left to balance.

Another good read, which explains pretty simply

Debunking The Calorie Myth - Why ?Calories in, Calories Out? is Wrong

So unless you have some iron clad discipline and ability to absolutely ignore all your body's natural responses, I argue a calorie is not a calorie even though thermodynamically calories in equals calories out.

Spld cyclist

Kingby

Not ironclad will, just an ability to be mindful of how many calories you burned and what you choose to eat. If you pay attention to how much food you normally eat, you can choose not to eat more than that in the hours after exercise. I don't think it's all that difficult, and I don't think I'm exceptional.

squirtdad

Calories in vs calories out is not false it is the simple bottom line in complex situation

No question that the the whole human body is complex, with complex results to inputs and outputs.

weight loss can vary in speed or lack of speed based on a zillion factors such as type of food, individual, exercise, type of exercise, etc.

But no one has ever lost weight by consuming more calories than the body uses.

Sixty Fiver

My wife has no thyroid and has to take supplemental thyroid hormones to live.

When she has become hypo-thyroid she has always gained significant weight despite calorie restrictions save for these past few months where she was adjusting to new medications, had increased her activity level with a new job and more cycling, and when she has been consuming 2300 calories a day (and sometimes more).

Her weight did not budge.

Now that the medications have been balanced she has gotten just a little curvier with no weight change as she is gaining muscle mass.

When normal people diet they cause changes in their endocrine system as it attempts to balance the system with less fuel and will slow metabolic processes in order to conserve energy and it does that by storing fat.

Additionally... if that "diet" still includes carbohydrates that triggers insulin production which blocks the use of fats as energy so even though the fuel is there, you have to burn through your glycogen stores before you can access it and by then, you are going to be craving more carbs.

Once people stop dieting their bodies will often have issues re-adjusting and this causes that yo-yo effect even though they may be consuming no more calories than they should.

A complete change in the way one eats can prevent this... my weight remains steady regardless of my activity level which goes from sedentary to moderately active and I really don't eat more or less as that is pretty constant.

The human body is pretty complex in how it uses and stores energy and calories in / calories out is too simplistic and causes failures.

squirtdad

IMHO this is misleading as the title implies that calories in calories out is wrong....which at the bottom line is incorrect

If you read that closely what it says is what you eat matters and if you eat 'correctly' you will lose weight because eating "correctly" way is automatically restricting your calories. ie the bottom line still reduces to the calories in vs calories out.

No where does it say you can eat more calories than you expend and lose weight....which would be true if calories in/calories out were a myth