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

[serenity648]

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.


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)

There is nothing questionable about my 'claim' I am reporting the facts of what happens to my body. It has nothing to do with being pro-or-anti low carb. These are my facts, from my experience of trying different combinations of macros and finding something apparently odd, but which works for me.

We are not all the same, our bodies are not replicated machines. And perhaps what works for a certain type of diabetic, or a non-diabetic, wont work for others.

 

[Bluetit1802]

they are mixing facts with myths or directly wrong in how the body chemistry works.

If you see glaring errors in the context of how the body chemistry works, and have expert knowledge of this, then it would help us all if you jump in and explain the correct science of the body. We all need to learn.

 

[Celsus]

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.

Super @bulkbiker, we actually totally agree then!
I like especially the fact you refer to regarding a calorie restricted diet actually within few days even slow down the person's metabolism. And that a standard calorie level low carb, full on fat & protein diet does not do that. But you have at the same time to say also that a similar standard calorie level diet with high carb, protein but low fat diet does exactly the same as the low carb diet.

Is CICO all dead and nonsense?
No - the principles still stand. You must take in fewer calories than you expend to drive weight loss.
But we need at same time to consider the bigger picture with BMR, TEF, EAT, NEAT etc, as per your abbreviations you most probably are familiar with.

Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides free! ;o)

 

[Guzzler]

I have said this before but it is worth repeating, science is not static. Science is a living, evolving subject. Man has come a long way from sitting at the crossroads at midnight clutching a toad's head whilst reciting the Lord's Prayer backwards to ward off the loss of a prize dairy cow.
What we may think is true today may well prove ill advised tomorrow, all we can do is apply logic without bias and of course we will start with our own experiences but that does not merit derision. We should keep an open mind while we try to understand. Anecdotal evidence is often at the foundation of burgeoning knowledge not just in the feild of medicine.

 

[Kristin251]

The FACT is EVERYBODY is different. Simple as that

 

[bulkbiker]

But you have at the same time to say also that a similar standard calorie level diet with high carb, protein but low fat diet does exactly the same as the low carb diet.

No I don't..
I don't have to go on to say it and I disagree with the premise.
High carbs diets cause insulin responses (spikes) that Low Carb diets don't. For those of us that produce insulin obviously.
So there is a difference.
There have been very, very few (any?) studies on a genuine ketogenic diet so I don't think you will be able to disprove it through science. But I would like to refer to the Low Carb programme run by this site with its 250,000 anecdotes. And of course my own n=1 experiences.

 

[Brunneria]

Hi @Brunneria

I have been warned privately by several posters about the 'low carb mafia' on this forum. Is this it? ;o)

Please do not make 'us and them' posts on the forum. The forum rules specifically prohibit it.

My post pointed out that there are outliers on any bell curve, and those outliers should not be dismissed or denied simply because they do not fit into the middle of the range. If you choose to take that as specifically relating to a single subject, then that is your choice, not my intention.

 

[Tannith]

Thank you for all your replies everyone.

 

[Celsus]

Thank you for all your replies everyone.

Did you btw get a reply to your question:
"Does anyone think that only calories from carbs can make you fat?" ;o)

 

[Celsus]

No I don't..
I don't have to go on to say it and I disagree with the premise.
High carbs diets cause insulin responses (spikes) that Low Carb diets don't. For those of us that produce insulin obviously.
So there is a difference.

Sorry @bulkbiker, then I lost you again going out on a tangent? We were not discussing if one diet or the other needed more insulin or not?? Of course I agree that the carb richer diet needs more insulin. We agreed on that the calorie restricted diet cause the metabolism to slow down. You then carry on to say the carb-restricted but normal calorie level diet boosted the metabolism in comparison. I agree to that. I simply highlighted that both low carb-high fat with normal calorie level diet as well as the low fat-high carb but normal calorie diet actually do have the same level of metabolistic burn rates, when cross tested in across same test population. Both when its 'normal' weight individuals as well as with 'overweight' individuals trying out the two diet options and both getting the same level of total calories in the two scenarios. The fun thing to observe is that also when indulging in a diet with too many calories, e.g. 50% above normal for a test person status-quo, then both diets again actually show the same level of weight gain over time for each person trying it out in a controlled environment.

Please notice here, I am not judging if one diet type is easier to comply with or the other or if one is easier to control with your insulin vs the other. And this is here where I totally get some find it easier to e.g. loose weight or manage their diabetes when on the low carb diet versus various alternatives.

 

[bulkbiker]

I simply highlighted that both low carb-high fat with normal calorie level diet as well as the low fat-high carb but normal calorie diet actually do have the same level of metabolistic burn rates, when cross tested in across same test population

I would be very interested in seeing that study especially the detailed breakdown of the ways of eating involved.
In my relatively extensive research I have never seen a prolonged (greater than 6 months) study of an ultra low carb /ketogenic diet (i.e. the way I currently eat) especially not when compared to high carb low fat equivalent.

 

[Mr_Pot]

@Celsus 2 years ago I started a low carb diet. According to the CICO theory I must have reduced the amount of calories below my "maintenance level" as my weight reduced from 92kg to 73kg in 6 months. Since then I have continued with the same type and quantities of food and exercise but my weight has stayed at 73kg. So if it is just a case of CICO why didn't I continue to lose weight?

 

[Kristin251]

CICO is meaningless to me. Carbs in fat on. Fat in fat out.

We all metabolize macro nutrients differently. Carbs = fat for me. I don't need to watch calories as I know my limit. I'm stuffed if I over eat calories.

 

[ringi]

@Celsus 2 years ago I started a low carb diet. According to the CICO theory I must have reduced the amount of calories below my "maintenance level" as my weight reduced from 92kg to 73kg in 6 months. Since then I have continued with the same type and quantities of food and exercise but my weight has stayed at 73kg. So if it is just a case of CICO why didn't I continue to lose weight?

OK, I will try to explain something I don’t agree with…..

The number of calories needed for a constant weight, with a constant activity level depends on someone’s weight. Hence a diet that allows a 30 stone person to lose weight will not allow a 15 stone person to do so. After all we all know that a HGV gets a lower MPG then a small car......

(I don’t agree that it is this simple….)

 

[Celsus]

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.

Thanks WoodyWhipper, all good and agreed. Happy also that Serenity has found the magic path to control the diabetes monster!

For your last remark about scientist / 'flat earthers' then historic research has bunked that myth long ago as the scholars were indeed frontrunners versus the uneducated masses. So ironic that you use that as an example.
Beginning in the 19th century the historical myth arose which held that the predominant cosmological doctrine during the Middle Ages was that the Earth was flat. ( I think you had a group of writers speculating around the challenges Columbus met from the strong religious churches to get the kingdom rulers' support to fund his adventures) Subsequent studies of medieval science have shown that most scholars in the Middle Ages, including those read by Christopher Columbus, maintained that the Earth was spherical. Read e.g. David Lindberg's book on the subject: "Science and the Early Christian Church" and even better Michael Shank's "The Scientific Enterprise in Antiquity and the Middle Ages" . Its not just for nerds, its great reading! ;o)

If you go further back, you also observe that Pythagoras in the 6th-century BC and Parmenides in the 5th-century stated that the Earth is spherical. This spherical view was quickly accepted in the Greek educated world. Around 330 BC Aristotle supported based on physical theory and observational evidence that the Earth was spherical. Think he might also be the first giving a shot at the size of that ball? Erastosthesenes confirmed that calculation a bit later. Ptolemy in the 2nd century AC made the globe maps including the latitude and longitude system. So no, the majority of scientist were not in denial. But it took centuries until the general population of uneducated got the chance to learn also. And still everyday today we still learn new things! ;o)

 

[Guzzler]

Thanks WoodyWhipper, all good and agreed. Happy also that Serenity has found the magic path to control the diabetes monster!

For your last remark about scientist / 'flat earthers' then historic research has bunked that myth long ago as the scholars were indeed frontrunners versus the uneducated masses. So ironic that you use that as an example.
Beginning in the 19th century the historical myth arose which held that the predominant cosmological doctrine during the Middle Ages was that the Earth was flat. ( I think you had a group of writers speculating around the challenges Columbus met from the strong religious churches to get the kingdom rulers' support to fund his adventures) Subsequent studies of medieval science have shown that most scholars in the Middle Ages, including those read by Christopher Columbus, maintained that the Earth was spherical. Read e.g. David Lindberg's book on the subject: "Science and the Early Christian Church" and even better Michael Shank's "The Scientific Enterprise in Antiquity and the Middle Ages" . Its not just for nerds, its great reading! ;o)

If you go further back, you also observe that Pythagoras in the 6th-century BC and Parmenides in the 5th-century stated that the Earth is spherical. This spherical view was quickly accepted in the Greek educated world. Around 330 BC Aristotle supported based on physical theory and observational evidence that the Earth was spherical. Think he might also be the first giving a shot at the size of that ball? Erastosthesenes confirmed that calculation a bit later. Ptolemy in the 2nd century AC made the globe maps including the latitude and longitude system. So no, the majority of scientist were not in denial. But it took centuries until the general population of uneducated got the chance to learn also. And still everyday today we still learn new things! ;o)

I disagree. Stonehenge. South American indiginous peoples. Knowledge of the stars and the seasons. No one thought the earth was flat, that was a much later construct.

 

[Bluetit1802]

I disagree. Stonehenge. South American indiginous peoples. Knowledge of the stars and the seasons. No one thought the earth was flat, that was a much later construct.

An aunt of mine, long since dead, was a member of the Flat Earth Society. She was convinced it was flat. And that was in the 20th Century!

Oooops. Off topic.

 

[Mr_Pot]

OK, I will try to explain something I don’t agree with…..

The number of calories needed for a constant weight, with a constant activity level depends on someone’s weight. Hence a diet that allows a 30 stone person to lose weight will not allow a 15 stone person to do so. After all we all know that a HGV gets a lower MPG then a small car......

(I don’t agree that it is this simple….)

It may not be that simple but I think that is at least part of it.
I have just worked out my maintenance calories using a BMR calculator and the Harris Benedict equation.
At 92kg I needed 2,362 kCal to stay the same weight.
At 73kg I need 2,000 kCal to stay the same weight.
I have never worked out how many calories I eat but a reduction of 362kCal from my old diet sounds reasonable.

 

[Bluetit1802]

It may not be that simple but I think that is at least part of it.
I have just worked out my maintenance calories using a BMR calculator and the Harris Benedict equation.
At 92kg I needed 2,362 kCal to stay the same weight.
At 73kg I need 2,000 kCal to stay the same weight.
I have never worked out how many calories I eat but a reduction of 362kCal from my old diet sounds reasonable.

The same calculator tells me I need 1800 calories to stay the same weight. I eat way more than that in a typical day but my weight remains stable, thank goodness.

 

[Guzzler]

An aunt of mine, long since dead, was a member of the Flat Earth Society. She was convinced it was flat. And that was in the 20th Century!

Oooops. Off topic.

Sorry all, digressing again but.... there are people today who beleive that the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosurs are a big fat hoax that scientists have played for their own amusement. That doesn't mean much in the scheme of things.