The Low Carb Diet Myth

[IMT staff]

Do calories from a soda have the same effect on your waistline as an equivalent number from an apple or a piece of chicken? For decades the question has percolated among researchers — not to mention dieters. It gained new momentum with a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggesting that after losing weight, people on a high-fat, high-protein diet burned more calories than those eating more carbohydrates.

http://increasemyt.com/daily-trt-articles/the-low-carb-diet-myth

 

[Mprtz]

I like most of your articles, but this one is off the mark. The concept that "a calorie is a calorie" and that to recognize that human nutrition metabolism is more complicated than a calorimeter somehow violates the laws of physics just won't die.

 

[dallasite]

Agreed, and aside from that everybody is unique. What might work for one person might not work for the other.

I have tried everything under the sun and my body still responds to low-carb like nothing else.

 

[IMT staff]

I like most of your articles, but this one is off the mark. The concept that "a calorie is a calorie" and that to recognize that human nutrition metabolism is more complicated than a calorimeter somehow violates the laws of physics just won't die.

I am confused here, the article is basically stating that a calorie is a calorie. So you guys are disagreeing?

 

[Mprtz]

I am confused here, the article is basically stating that a calorie is a calorie. So you guys are disagreeing?

Yes. The notion calories from all sources (fats, proteins, carbohydrates) affect our bodies in the same way with regards to weight loss, and that all that matters is net calories consumed vs. calories expended is just plain wrong.

The science writer Gary Taubes has done a great job detailing how we came to believe this (only since the 60s... our grandparents knew better), and how little sense it makes. I can't restate all the excellent info in his two books "why we get fat" and "good calories, bad calories", but two item that I do remember are:

If a calorie deficit always led to fat loss then it should not be possible to starve to death with fat stores intact. But with a sufficiently compromised metabolism, it is possible.

If calorie surplus always leads to weight gain and calorie deficit leads to weight loss, we should all be fat. We'd have to be incredibly precise in our uptake because being only 20 calories per day over we would gain tens of pounds of fat over a few years.

 

[IMT staff]

So how do you explain the twinkie diet then?

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com

So I have to totally disagree with you because a calorie is just a calorie, and it really is as simple deficit vs surplus when it comes to weight-loss.

Now, the macronutrient ratio does play a role in what type of weight you carry, IE LBM vs Fat, but as far as total weight, no one has provided any evidence whatsoever to refute it, so it seems to me more like an opinion of yours than an understanding based on peer reviewed literature.

Also what about the study in the article? I guess what I am saying is I hear you disagreeing, but I don't see anything to back it up

 

[Gbrad]

Yes. The notion calories from all sources (fats, proteins, carbohydrates) affect our bodies in the same way with regards to weight loss, and that all that matters is net calories consumed vs. calories expended is just plain wrong.

The science writer Gary Taubes has done a great job detailing how we came to believe this (only since the 60s... our grandparents knew better), and how little sense it makes. I can't restate all the excellent info in his two books "why we get fat" and "good calories, bad calories", but two item that I do remember are:

If a calorie deficit always led to fat loss then it should not be possible to starve to death with fat stores intact. But with a sufficiently compromised metabolism, it is possible.

If calorie surplus always leads to weight gain and calorie deficit leads to weight loss, we should all be fat. We'd have to be incredibly precise in our uptake because being only 20 calories per day over we would gain tens of pounds of fat over a few years.

X2

There is NO WAY our bodies view a calorie as a calorie from a metabolic standpoint. Disagree? Have a glass of orange juice on an empty stomach one morning. Record how u feel in about 1.5 hours. Next morning have 1.5 hard boiled eggs. Record feelings in 1.5 hours. The insulin spike after OJ will make u RAVENOUS in short time. Hard boiled egg doesn't illicit the same insulin response. Kinda elementary but makes the point.

 

[Mprtz]

So how do you explain the twinkie diet then?

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com

So I have to totally disagree with you because a calorie is just a calorie, and it really is as simple deficit vs surplus when it comes to weight-loss.

Now, the macronutrient ratio does play a role in what type of weight you carry, IE LBM vs Fat, but as far as total weight, no one has provided any evidence whatsoever to refute it, so it seems to me more like an opinion of yours than an understanding based on peer reviewed literature.

Also what about the study in the article? I guess what I am saying is I hear you disagreeing, but I don't see anything to back it up

Lots of evidence and citations in the book(s) I referenced. Much more than I can recap... check them out if you're interested. They are an eye-opener and I challenge you to read "why we get fat" and continue to believe that "a calorie is a calorie".

 

[IMT staff]

I am sure it is a good book, but that is just one reference. Also the twinkie diet definitely refutes Gary's claims, the Doctor in the article I posted also comments on that.

I am not saying that macro's don't affect how you look, but as far as total weight loss, a calorie is a calorie, its simple physics

There is an inflexible law of physics energy taken in must exactly equal the number of calories leaving the system when fat storage is unchanged. Calories leave the system when food is used to fuel the body. To lower fat content reduce obesity one must reduce calories taken in, or increase the output by increasing activity, or both. This is true whether calories come from pumpkins or peanuts or pâté de foie gras.

To believe otherwise is to believe we can find a really good perpetual motion machine to solve our energy problems. It wont work, and neither will changing the source of calories permit us to disobey the laws of science.

 

[IMT staff]

X2

There is NO WAY our bodies view a calorie as a calorie from a metabolic standpoint. Disagree? Have a glass of orange juice on an empty stomach one morning. Record how u feel in about 1.5 hours. Next morning have 1.5 hard boiled eggs. Record feelings in 1.5 hours. The insulin spike after OJ will make u RAVENOUS in short time. Hard boiled egg doesn't illicit the same insulin response. Kinda elementary but makes the point.

You are missing the point of the discussion, no one said different calories don't affect us in different ways, the debate is wether or not it matters from a weight loss standpoint.

No one is arguing that a proper macro nutrient ratio and a well-balanced diet is not better for you, more importantly that is the point of the article, not to fall for fad diets, that a well balanced approach is the effective method.

 

[halfwit]

From the body's standpoint, a calorie IS a calorie. I think you guys are misunderstanding what IMT is saying. It's not that you'll put that energy to use in a different manner that's being disputed, it's that it doesn't matter if you consume 500 calories from a soda or from a sandwich - they both give you 500 calories. Sure the sandwich is a more nutrient dense form of caloric intake and will provide you with a better balance of carbohydrates/proteins/fats, but your body still uses those 500 calories all the same.

The reason for the obesity epidemic in our country isn't because of the amount of carbs necessarily that we consume, it's that our diet portions have grown exponentially in the last few decades. Combine this with the fact that many lead a more sedentary lifestyle, and we have a plague of diabetes and heart disease in the making.

If anyone wants to refute how a measure of heat energy from one source is different than another when it comes to the ATP chain or through metabolic pathways feel free. I have my university nutrition textbook right next to me lol.

 

[Gbrad]

You are missing the point of the discussion, no one said different calories don't affect us in different ways, the debate is wether or not it matters from a weight loss standpoint.

No one is arguing that a proper macro nutrient ratio and a well-balanced diet is not better for you, more importantly that is the point of the article, not to fall for fad diets, that a well balanced approach is the effective method.

No I think I got the point. Eat one M & M a day and you lose weight. Meth is also great for losing weight and appetite suppression!

I guess I'm wondering what the hell the point in bringing that up is? Not being too militant about a single eating philosophy is sort of weak. Kinda comes off like a argue starter more than anything else. You are free to blog about whatever you want so keep on keepin on!

 

[IMT staff]

No I think I got the point. Eat one M & M a day and you lose weight. Meth is also great for losing weight and appetite suppression!

I guess I'm wondering what the hell the point in bringing that up is? Not being too militant about a single eating philosophy is sort of weak. Kinda comes off like a argue starter more than anything else. You are free to blog about whatever you want so keep on keepin on!

Now I am really confused .................

 

[Mprtz]

From the body's standpoint, a calorie IS a calorie. I think you guys are misunderstanding what IMT is saying. It's not that you'll put that energy to use in a different manner that's being disputed, it's that it doesn't matter if you consume 500 calories from a soda or from a sandwich - they both give you 500 calories. Sure the sandwich is a more nutrient dense form of caloric intake and will provide you with a better balance of carbohydrates/proteins/fats, but your body still uses those 500 calories all the same.

The reason for the obesity epidemic in our country isn't because of the amount of carbs necessarily that we consume, it's that our diet portions have grown exponentially in the last few decades. Combine this with the fact that many lead a more sedentary lifestyle, and we have a plague of diabetes and heart disease in the making.

If anyone wants to refute how a measure of heat energy from one source is different than another when it comes to the ATP chain or through metabolic pathways feel free. I have my university nutrition textbook right next to me lol.

Just re-read the book I referenced and it's now fresh enough in my mind to attempt to summarize:
Yes, on some level a calorie is a calorie in that the there is an equation relating the amount of calories consumed to the amount of calories expended plus stored. The problem is that there has been a causal relationship inferred into this equation, I.E. we get fat because we eat too much and exercise too little. A century of research and experimentation shows just how ineffective treating the obese with semi-starvation diets (that is, anything below maintainance) is. Attempting to fatten the normally lean in a lasting way proves similarly difficult.

Growing children eat voraciously, but nobody would say that they grow BECAUSE they eat to excess. Their growth is fueled by hormonal processes and drives them to eat to support that growth.
The obese generally get fat because of a disfunctional fat metabolism, mostly caused by hyperinsulinemia brought on by the effects of refined carbohydrates in flour, starches and sugars that appear in our modern diet out of all relation to how we evolved.
People overeat BECAUSE they are getting fat - not the other way around. Excess insulin "locks up" triglycerides in the fat cells and allows blood sugar to drop causing hunger. Restrict their diets and they will reduce their energy expenditure, consciously or unconsciously. In extreme cases, they will metabolize muscle and organs before giving up their fat stores. This is what is meant by saying that a "calorie is not a calorie" as pertains to fat loss or gain - the effect of carbohydrate calories vs. fat and protein calories on hormonal fat metabolism is a stronger driver than attempts to regulate weight by controlling intake and output.

 

[halfwit]

Just re-read the book I referenced and it's now fresh enough in my mind to attempt to summarize:
Yes, on some level a calorie is a calorie in that the there is an equation relating the amount of calories consumed to the amount of calories expended plus stored. The problem is that there has been a causal relationship inferred into this equation, I.E. we get fat because we eat too much and exercise too little. A century of research and experimentation shows just how ineffective treating the obese with semi-starvation diets (that is, anything below maintainance) is. Attempting to fatten the normally lean in a lasting way proves similarly difficult.

Growing children eat voraciously, but nobody would say that they grow BECAUSE they eat to excess. Their growth is fueled by hormonal processes and drives them to eat to support that growth.
The obese generally get fat because of a disfunctional fat metabolism, mostly caused by hyperinsulinemia brought on by the effects of refined carbohydrates in flour, starches and sugars that appear in our modern diet out of all relation to how we evolved.
People overeat BECAUSE they are getting fat - not the other way around. Excess insulin "locks up" triglycerides in the fat cells and allows blood sugar to drop causing hunger. Restrict their diets and they will reduce their energy expenditure, consciously or unconsciously. In extreme cases, they will metabolize muscle and organs before giving up their fat stores. This is what is meant by saying that a "calorie is not a calorie" as pertains to fat loss or gain - the effect of carbohydrate calories vs. fat and protein calories on hormonal fat metabolism is a stronger driver than attempts to regulate weight by controlling intake and output.

You stinker, I have no clue where my book went now. Haha. I do agree that the methods used in weight management are largely ineffective because we're going about it wrong, but I do feel that's largely to blame because we simply don't fully understand how or why obese people have such a propensity for obesity. There have been recent discoveries into certain enzymes and protein chains found to be in inverse proportions with healthy/thin folks and their obese kin. I wish I could remember the names of these, but they have found that this is largely to blame for why certain folks do have a propensity to store food as fat instead of attempting to give a metabolic shove into an energy expenditure.

The only problem with trying to compare macronutrients with other macronutrients in how they cause obesity via the insulin response is that not all carbs or fats are equal. Many of the carbohydrates that are known to have a high glycemic index tend to have a fiber-rich cousin that actually may score lower than an energy dense fat that can potentially trigger a spike of insulin, leading to a hypoglycemic state - furthering insulin resistance over time.

Sure, I do agree with you (as a diabetic) that carbohydrates do tend to have a greater impact on blood sugar and overall health; but we cannot ignore that a HUGE part of the problem is that we're now consuming upwards of 3500 kcals per day and burning far less than that as a nation. I tip my hat to keto diets as they do prove that one can lose weight by reducing substantially the amount of carbohydrates consumed, but few realize that they are also feeling satiated far sooner due to the effects of an almost entirely protein diet. I agree with what you're saying here, but from an energy standpoint - a calorie is still a calorie, and we must burn more than we consume to reduce fat stores.

I'd love to delve further into the metabolization of fat stores, but I frankly forgot a huge part of how that worked and the intricacies of how certain peptides and hormones were involved for the case of obese versus "healthy" individuals. No disrespect intended of course.

 

[Hoodlum]

Can't believe all these posts, and not a single mention of the key issue here - leptin!

Whilst a calorie may just be a calorie, and the laws of physics can't be broken, how many extra calories our bodies burn on top of the bare minimum required for generating heat and movement is massively variable and dependent on leptin resistance levels. Two people of exactly the same build could eat the same amount of food, and one can gain weight whilst the other does not. It's not only the quantity of calories that is important, but the composition of the diet as well.

Here's a good article explaining the concept - T NATION | Control Leptin and Control Your Leanness!

 

[DreDay187]

Can't believe all these posts, and not a single mention of the key issue here - leptin!

Whilst a calorie may just be a calorie, and the laws of physics can't be broken, how many extra calories our bodies burn on top of the bare minimum required for generating heat and movement is massively variable and dependent on leptin resistance levels. Two people of exactly the same build could eat the same amount of food, and one can gain weight whilst the other does not. It's not only the quantity of calories that is important, but the composition of the diet as well.

Here's a good article explaining the concept - T NATION | Control Leptin and Control Your Leanness!

Just because the build of someone is the same does not mean they have the same metabolic rate. And in regards to weight loss it's only the amount of calories that matter not the composition.

 

[DreDay187]

Just re-read the book I referenced and it's now fresh enough in my mind to attempt to summarize:
Yes, on some level a calorie is a calorie in that the there is an equation relating the amount of calories consumed to the amount of calories expended plus stored. The problem is that there has been a causal relationship inferred into this equation, I.E. we get fat because we eat too much and exercise too little. A century of research and experimentation shows just how ineffective treating the obese with semi-starvation diets (that is, anything below maintainance) is. Attempting to fatten the normally lean in a lasting way proves similarly difficult.

Growing children eat voraciously, but nobody would say that they grow BECAUSE they eat to excess. Their growth is fueled by hormonal processes and drives them to eat to support that growth.
The obese generally get fat because of a disfunctional fat metabolism, mostly caused by hyperinsulinemia brought on by the effects of refined carbohydrates in flour, starches and sugars that appear in our modern diet out of all relation to how we evolved.
People overeat BECAUSE they are getting fat - not the other way around. Excess insulin "locks up" triglycerides in the fat cells and allows blood sugar to drop causing hunger. Restrict their diets and they will reduce their energy expenditure, consciously or unconsciously. In extreme cases, they will metabolize muscle and organs before giving up their fat stores. This is what is meant by saying that a "calorie is not a calorie" as pertains to fat loss or gain - the effect of carbohydrate calories vs. fat and protein calories on hormonal fat metabolism is a stronger driver than attempts to regulate weight by controlling intake and output.

Gary Taubes is an idiot just an FYI. Makes unsubstantiated claims, misinterprets research, and is a sugar-phobe. Not an unbiased source of information about this topic.

 

[Hoodlum]

Just because the build of someone is the same does not mean they have the same metabolic rate.

I didn't say they would have the same metabolic rate - quite the opposite.

And in regards to weight loss it's only the amount of calories that matter not the composition.

It's the amount of calories, and your metabolic rate as determined by leptin levels and resistance. If you consistently overeat, the composition of your calorific intake will contribute to the level of leptin resistance that you develop, since leptin and insulin are linked. If you consistently under eat for prolonged periods of time, your metabolism will eventually slow and the weight loss will slow.

 

[DreDay187]

I didn't say they would have the same metabolic rate - quite the opposite.



It's the amount of calories, and your metabolic rate as determined by leptin levels and resistance. If you consistently overeat, the composition of your calorific intake will contribute to the level of leptin resistance that you develop, since leptin and insulin are linked. If you consistently under eat for prolonged periods of time, your metabolism will eventually slow and the weight loss will slow.

There's more to metabolic rate than just leptin levels and resistance. As to metabolism slowing a simple carb refeed day is almost always enough to increase leptin levels and reverse this problem. Plus leptin is still being researched heavily since it's not known exactly how it works according to Lyle McDonald.

Also your second paragraph says nothing about my quoted sentence: weight loss is simply a function of calories in and calories out, actual body composition takes into account more factors.