Does anyone think that only calories from carbs can make you fat?

[mytype1.life]

A really interesting thread. What confuses me most is logically more carbs = weight gain and I personally have to eat well and work out to not be overweight. Why is it some people can eat nothing but carbs (and the bad ones!), never exercise and not gain weight?!

 

[Guzzler]

A really interesting thread. What confuses me most is logically more carbs = weight gain and I personally have to eat well and work out to not be overweight. Why is it some people can eat nothing but carbs (and the bad ones!), never exercise and not gain weight?!

Mostly genes.... and being jammy beggars.

 

[Brunneria]

Mostly genes.... and being jammy beggars.

Totally agree.

plus hormones

insulin is a major player in weight gain, but there are others that contribute - those of us with other hormone dysregularities (cushings, polycystic ovary syndrome, peri-menopause, and many others) experience this first hand.

 

[Guzzler]

Totally agree.

plus hormones

insulin is a major player in weight gain, but there are others that contribute - those of us with other hormone dysregularities (cushings, polycystic ovary syndrome, peri-menopause, and many others) experience this first hand.

The menopause can be a big game changer just on its own.

 

[bulkbiker]

Nice presentation, Thanks BB, learned several new concepts - energy wasting and mitochondria UCP1 changing to burning glucose and conversion of WAT to BAT due to ketones and back again with insulin. Amazing stuff.
Feel free to send more my way

If you have a spare couple of days.. there are quite a few more...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrVWtWmYRR2C8Lc8kn5qAmsSewdmssmmb

enjoy..

 

[bulkbiker]

A really interesting thread. What confuses me most is logically more carbs = weight gain and I personally have to eat well and work out to not be overweight. Why is it some people can eat nothing but carbs (and the bad ones!), never exercise and not gain weight?!

That's probably because their insulin mechanism works fine.. in your case you don't produce any so have to regulate yourself possibly not as efficiently as your body would if it could. In my case as a reformed Type 2 my metabolism got deranged so didn't work as it should (probably due to excessive carb overconsumption) so made me fat and gave me Type 2 as an extra gift.

 

[Celsus]

I am not wholly convinced about the 'calories in calories out' mantra....

Hi @Guzzler,
Countless controlled studies have been conducted on this subject and they come out with same conclusion:
Aka, if your body burns 1000 calories per day, then if you eat 1000 calories per day, you will not gain weight. And it doesn't matter if those 1000 calories are composed of high fat, low fat, high carb or low carb kind of diet. The interesting part is that in same body situation, if you then start to eat e.g. 1500 calories per day, you will gain exactly the same weight over the same period of time. Again no matter how those 1500 calories are composed. No matter if it is a high fat, low fat, high carb or low carb kind of diet.

If you are into the scientific and fact based details then suggest you read some of the controlled studies around what happens when you switch to a low carb diet, as it always causes an initial (relatively) sharp decrease in total weight due to the drop in water weight that accompanies carb restriction. That is because the glycogen stored in our liver, muscles, and fat cells are stored in a hydrated form, with three to four parts water. Example of such study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1615908

 

[bulkbiker]

Hi @Guzzler,
Countless controlled studies have been conducted on this subject and they come out with same conclusion:
Aka, if your body burns 1000 calories per day, then if you eat 1000 calories per day, you will not gain weight. And it doesn't matter if those 1000 calories are composed of high fat, low fat, high carb or low carb kind of diet. The interesting part is that in same body situation, if you then start to eat e.g. 1500 calories per day, you will gain exactly the same weight over the same period of time. Again no matter how those 1500 calories are composed. No matter if it is a high fat, low fat, high carb or low carb kind of diet.

If you are into the scientific and fact based details then suggest you read some of the controlled studies around what happens when you switch to a low carb diet, as it always causes an initial (relatively) sharp decrease in total weight due to the drop in water weight that accompanies carb restriction. That is because the glycogen stored in our liver, muscles, and fat cells are stored in a hydrated form, with three to four parts water. Example of such study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1615908

The study you reference refers to a Very Low Calorie Diet...at least that is what the abstract says..

"Total body potassium (TBK) changes early in very-low-calorie diets (VLCDs) primarily reflect glycogen storage."

 

[Guzzler]

Hi @Guzzler,
Countless controlled studies have been conducted on this subject and they come out with same conclusion:
Aka, if your body burns 1000 calories per day, then if you eat 1000 calories per day, you will not gain weight. And it doesn't matter if those 1000 calories are composed of high fat, low fat, high carb or low carb kind of diet. The interesting part is that in same body situation, if you then start to eat e.g. 1500 calories per day, you will gain exactly the same weight over the same period of time. Again no matter how those 1500 calories are composed. No matter if it is a high fat, low fat, high carb or low carb kind of diet.

If you are into the scientific and fact based details then suggest you read some of the controlled studies around what happens when you switch to a low carb diet, as it always causes an initial (relatively) sharp decrease in total weight due to the drop in water weight that accompanies carb restriction. That is because the glycogen stored in our liver, muscles, and fat cells are stored in a hydrated form, with three to four parts water. Example of such study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1615908

Thank you for the links. I am wading through the available info on IR atm and to be honest, I am still at the stage whereby I am trying to understand what is going on in my own situation and as I do not and never have had a problem with weight the weight /gain and retention is not yet a specific area of interest to me. To be honest, the PFT is much more significant an area at this time. What I get so far about the C in and C out is the idea that all obese people need to do is to eat less and move more which we know does not always work for those with T2. Thanks again.

 

[serenity648]

Hi @Guzzler,
Countless controlled studies have been conducted on this subject and they come out with same conclusion:
Aka, if your body burns 1000 calories per day, then if you eat 1000 calories per day, you will not gain weight. And it doesn't matter if those 1000 calories are composed of high fat, low fat, high carb or low carb kind of diet. The interesting part is that in same body situation, if you then start to eat e.g. 1500 calories per day, you will gain exactly the same weight over the same period of time. Again no matter how those 1500 calories are composed. No matter if it is a high fat, low fat, high carb or low carb kind of diet.

If you are into the scientific and fact based details then suggest you read some of the controlled studies around what happens when you switch to a low carb diet, as it always causes an initial (relatively) sharp decrease in total weight due to the drop in water weight that accompanies carb restriction. That is because the glycogen stored in our liver, muscles, and fat cells are stored in a hydrated form, with three to four parts water. Example of such study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1615908

However, there are a fair few of us on here, including me, who are the exception to that idea and the composition of our calories matters in regard to weight loss, gain or maintenance. As ever, one size does not fit all.

 

[Celsus]

The study you reference refers to a Very Low Calorie Diet...at least that is what the abstract says..
"Total body potassium (TBK) changes early in very-low-calorie diets (VLCDs) primarily reflect glycogen storage."

Hi @bulkbiker, are you questioning the claim that the initial rapid weight loss is due to the water shed when getting rid of the hydrated glycogen stored in our liver, muscles, and fat cells? Or what was your point here? The stored glycogen is always in hydrated form, no matter if you are on a low calorie diet or not.

 

[Celsus]

However, there are a fair few of us on here, including me, who are the exception to that idea and the composition of our calories matters in regard to weight loss, gain or maintenance. As ever, one size does not fit all.

Is it worthwhile to post scientific and repeatedly proven facts on this forum if it goes against some with personal convictions of never proven claims?

 

[ringi]

The statement

"if your body burns 1000 calories per day and you eat X calories per day....."​

Is at one level clearly valid, but does not take into account that the calories our body burns is depended on what type of food we eat and when we eat, so therefore is not a constant.

This is the error with "calories in / calories out" type of thinking, it assuems that the two sides of the equiation are indepandant of each other.

 

[Brunneria]

Is it worthwhile to post scientific and repeatedly proven facts on this forum if it goes against some with personal convictions of never proven claims?

Of course.
So long as the person posting those scientific 'proven' 'facts' doesn't get defensive when there are numerous people whose experiences contradict them.

Most of these 'scientific and repeatedly proven facts' are quoted from studies which have rigorous selection processes and reject the large number of people who don't fit their test criteria - the people with multiple health issues, or who depend on medication which may affect the results. There are usually age, weight, and other restrictions to the selection process too.

Consequently, such 'facts' may be applicable to those individuals selected for the study, but because large numbers of people are automatically excluded from the study means that the 'facts' are not proven to apply across the board.

 

[woodywhippet61]

Is it worthwhile to post scientific and repeatedly proven facts on this forum if it goes against some with personal convictions of never proven claims?

Yes of course it's worthwhile because it will be of help to someone and it makes us think.

As for what Serenity648 claims well it works for her so to me that's proof enough.

Years ago scientists told us the earth was flat, until some people got on a ship, sailed away and didn't fall off the edge.

 

[woodywhippet61]

Of course.
So long as the person posting those scientific 'proven' 'facts' doesn't get defensive when there are numerous people whose experiences contradict them.

Most of these 'scientific and repeatedly proven facts' are quoted from studies which have rigorous selection processes and reject the large number of people who don't fit their test criteria - the people with multiple health issues, or who depend on medication which may affect the results. There are usually age, weight, and other restrictions to the selection process too.

Consequently, such 'facts' may be applicable to those individuals selected for the study, but because large numbers of people are automatically excluded from the study means that the 'facts' are not proven to apply across the board.

You just said that so much better than I could.

 

[serenity648]

Is it worthwhile to post scientific and repeatedly proven facts on this forum if it goes against some with personal convictions of never proven claims?

my experience is proof of what does and doesnt work for me. The threads containing posts from others about similar experiences is also proof that CICO scientific facts are not facts for all.

There is no need to be defensive. I dont know what you consider to be proof, after all, gut bacteria causing stomach ulcers was proven to be wrong for decades, until it was proven to be right. As was the concept that fat is bad for us.

 

[carty]

I have read and inwardly digested (most) of this thread I am an underweight type 2 6 stone 13 I eat as many calories as possible while eating minimum carbs and I cannot gain weight I had a minor op on Monday and haven't been able to eat my usual full fat yoghurt and double cream for 2days but the rest of my diet has mostly stayed the same but I have lost 2 pounds HE L.P.
CAROL

 

[bulkbiker]

Hi @bulkbiker, are you questioning the claim that the initial rapid weight loss is due to the water shed when getting rid of the hydrated glycogen stored in our liver, muscles, and fat cells? Or what was your point here? The stored glycogen is always in hydrated form, no matter if you are on a low calorie diet or not.

No you said
"

suggest you read some of the controlled studies around what happens when you switch to a low carb diet

I was just querying that you then go on to quote a low calorie diet study...

Yes I agree that initially the big whoosh of weight loss can usually come from water weight loss.

Where we may differ is that I believe a low carb diet then goes on to boost metabolic rate whereas caloric restriction tends to lower it so a low calorie diet longer term is far less effect than a low carb diet. The calories out part of CICO may not be constant but may vary depending on diet and even eating windows.

 

[Celsus]

So long as the person posting those scientific 'proven' 'facts' doesn't get defensive when there are numerous people whose experiences contradict them.

Hi @Brunneria, the fun thing here is I don't see the personal experiences contradict what I try to share with the open forum here.
Just trying to identify the true cause and causality. And that can be challenging for many.

.
Most of these 'scientific and repeatedly proven facts' are quoted from studies which have rigorous selection processes and reject the large number of people who don't fit their test criteria - the people with multiple health issues, or who depend on medication which may affect the results. There are usually age, weight, and other restrictions to the selection process too.

Many trials have a very narrow scope for good reasons. But please Brunneria, co-morbidities should not refrain us from becoming wiser by conducting studies. So please lets not let that cloud the issue. Reason why I also referred at several occasions to the more broad trials that have shown same results exactly also when including a large variation of study population. Across age spans, across BMI index so both reviewing normal weights, overweights and obese. And in some cases various morbidities.

I have been warned privately by several posters about the 'low carb mafia' on this forum. Is this it? ;o)
Just look at a single post that I made which then suddenly get bombarded with posts coming from all angles and many with questionable claims. It can be exhausting to experience and probably makes forum members thinks twice. Is it worth it?
Dear all, Don't get me wrong. I fully understand your low carb conviction and also the underlying good working principles in it. And I am very supportive of it! If it works for you, all good, keep going! I just react to some of the claims being posted which I feel are not good left alone, as they are mixing facts with myths or directly wrong in how the body chemistry works. And this I find challenging, as others might take it as hard facts. Yes, its still a mystery with many things in this complex machine. So don't kill me now. The Type1 is already doing that job nicely.

Peace out to you all ! ;o)