How many calories on a low carb diet?

[googlegoss]

I know calories have nothing to do with a low carb diet but if you are trying to lose weight should you be cutting calories as well as carbs?

 

[borofergie]

Count carbs, not calories. Once you've freed yourself of carb induced "sugar rushes" you can start to trust your appetite to regulate your energy intake. Fat and protein are more satiating than carbs, so if you build your diet around them, you naturally end up eating fewer calories.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Yes you will have to cut both carbs and calories, you cant lose weight unless you cut calories, but cutting the carbs down may well be enough calorie reduction as long as you dont just replace all the carbs with fat :thumbup:

 

[googlegoss]

Thanks for replying

 

[borofergie]

Like Sid says, unless you are gluggling down the double cream (yum, yum, yum), it's pretty difficult to eat enough fat and protein to replace the flour / grains / sugar / tubers that you cut out of your diet on a low-carb diet.

Atkins doesn't suggest you count calories, neither does Bernstein, neither does Taubes (or Feinman, or Westman, or Volek, or Phinney, or Jaminet, or Harris, or Guyenet). You get the picture.

One of the benefits of a low-carb (as opposed to low-calorie) diet is that you should never have to feel hungry. I don't count calories, and I've lost 70lbs in the last couple of years.

Your appetite evolved as a mechanism to control your energy intake. Unfortunately it gets confused by the hormonal response to eating refined carbohydrates like flour, and sugar, and grains (which it didn't evolve to cope with). Once you remove these from your diet then you can start to trust your appetite.

Obviously calories count (burn more than you eat and you'll lost weight), but it's much better to let your appetite take care of that than trying to second guess your needs using some criteria that isn't tailored to your daily individual needs. If you try to limit carbs and calories, you'll end up being hungry and frustrated, which will probably end up with you over-eating.

It's a bit like "take care of the pennies and the pounds take care of themselves", but in this case it's "take care of the carbs and the calories will take care of themselves."

 

[xyzzy]

Like Stephen says if you low carb enough you should find your calorie intake comes down too. I actually find I need to add a bit of high calorific stuff in the form of fats (cheese or a bit of double cream) to my diet to maintain a reasonable calorific intake. Everyone's calorific needs are different but what I initially did was to fix my carb levels so the my BG's were safe and the adjusted my fat intake to the point I was losing weight slowly but steadily say a couple of pounds a week. Slow and steady has worked for me so a 4 stones loss in 8 months. I still find it highly bizarre I've managed that while eating double cream most days put I'm not arguing!

 

[Anonymous]

Yes you will have to cut both carbs and calories, you cant lose weight unless you cut calories, but cutting the carbs down may well be enough calorie reduction as long as you dont just replace all the carbs with fat :thumbup:

Surely this view is at least debatable ? Hasn't the whole calories in / calories out debate been successfully challenged by Taubes?

 

[borofergie]

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15282028

 

[hanadr]

We don't work like internal combustion engines and carb counting DOESN'T work. [certainly not in the long term] One study put people on 4000 Cals per day of mainly fat and they lost weight. Half that in carbs and you'd GAIN
I'm losing fairly well at the moment. {I am usually the MOST weightloss resistant person on the planet} I just avoid carbs and eat very little. Since a significant proportion of what I do eat is fats [cream and cheese and the like] My cal count would probably not be very low. I don't know, I haven't worked it out.
I have my gym gang weigh in tomorrow and I'm hoping the trainer's scales say the same as my own, which is about 1Kg down this week.
Hana

 

[borofergie]

Atwater only calculated the calorific values of different macronutrients at the end of the 19th century.
Calorie counting as a method of weight control was only really invented in the 1920s.
We've only been labelling the calorie content of food since the 1990s.

So calorie counting has been around for less than 100 years (the last 30 years of which have been the worst obesity epidemic in the history of the mamallian species). For at least the the 220million years before that, we were using our appetite to regulate our calorie intake, and there was little (if any) obesity.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Yes you will have to cut both carbs and calories, you cant lose weight unless you cut calories, but cutting the carbs down may well be enough calorie reduction as long as you dont just replace all the carbs with fat :thumbup:

Surely this view is at least debatable ? Hasn't the whole calories in / calories out debate been successfully challenged by Taubes?

No, eat less lose weight :thumbup:

If you eat more how can you lose weight?

Taubes is a writer not a scientist, no one has ever challenged that if you eat less you lose weight. Ask yourself how many fat people there were during rationing? And consider too that during rationing most people grew their own root vegetables so carbs are not the cause of weight gain as Taubes claims it is eating too much which almost everybody today does.

 

[borofergie]

Ask yourself how many fat people there were during rationing? And consider too that during rationing most people grew their own root vegetables so carbs are not the cause of weight gain as Taubes claims it is eating too much which almost everybody today does.

Funnily enough, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that enforced calorie restriction leads to obesity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/health/02global.html
This can even act across generations, where the offspring of parents who have been exposed to malnutrition are more prone to obesity.

Some experts even site WWII rationing as the real start of the obesity epidemic, due to the change in social attitudes to eating that it caused.

 

[dawnmc]

I don't eat a lot and I can't lose weight. I've stopped exercising and gained the weight back that I lost initally when I began low carbing. A query about this on another site said I should eat more calories, drink more water exercise more. lol. So really at a loss a to what really works to lose weight.

 

[catherinecherub]

I don't eat a lot and I can't lose weight. I've stopped exercising and gained the weight back that I lost initally when I began low carbing. A query about this on another site said I should eat more calories, drink more water exercise more. lol. So really at a loss a to what really works to lose weight.

Maybe your body has gone into starvation mode and you are not eating enough? This will stop the weight shifting.

Most Type2 diabetics who are overweight have cut the calories to what they were eating before diagnosis even if they do not count calories but it would be worth working out what people were eating calorie wise prior to lifestyle changes.

 

[dawnmc]

Thing is Catherine, I was vegetarian for 5 yrs before diagnosis, now I have started eating fish, a veggie diet is carb heavy, its easy to put sauces with rice or pasta. I weigh just under 12 stone, at 5.7, I don't look that overweight, its where the fat is that makes the difference. Since a hysterctomy and menopause I put on 2 stone, and I've found no matter what I do the weight won't go.
So for me I think its back to the exercise (kettlebell).

 

[Patch]

There you go, Sue - a nice, concise answer! :crazy:

My opinion is - don't count the calories. Eat until you're full. When you're not eating loads of carbs, you'll know when you're full.

 

[phoenix]

So what happens when calories* decrease on a nationwide basis and that reduction comes mainly from from protein and fat with an increased dependence on sugar and refined carbohydrates ?
Guyanet writes on it here.

During the economic crisis, the prevalence of obesity declined by about half, and overweight declined or stayed the same depending on which data you believe. As calorie intake went back up during the economic recovery, obesity rebounded. The prevalence of underweight increased, suggesting that a small fraction of people weren't getting enough calories to maintain weight. Total mortality, diabetes, and coronary heart disease rates declined during the crisis

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/20 ... tural.html
also
Impact of Energy Intake, Physical Activity, and Population-wide Weight Loss on Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mortality in Cuba, 1980–2005
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/1 ... 74.long#F3

Funnily enough, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that enforced calorie restriction leads to obesity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/health/02global.html
This can even act across generations, where the offspring of parents who have been exposed to malnutrition are more prone to obesity.
Some experts even site WWII rationing as the real start of the obesity epidemic, due to the change in social attitudes to eating that it caused

Re Biafra :These women were suffering from starvation/malnutriton.' If you're as old as I you will be able to remember the heart rending TV pictures of Biafra.
SImilalry in the Dutch Hunger winter from which we derive much of the data The adult rations in cities such as Amsterdam had dropped to below 1000 kilocalories (4,200 kilojoules) a day by the end of November 1944 and to 580 kilocalories in the west by the end of February 1945'
In contrast ,even with rationing in the UK , It was not starvation rations,(estimates seem to be 2000-2600, higher for manual workers) merely boring ones. The French had lower calories and that doesn't seem to have lead to obesity.

(and I'd agree calories as a measurement aren't perfect but see )
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5022e/y5 ... #TopOfPage)

 

[viviennem]

Regarding low-carbing and counting calories:

When I first went on Atkins Induction, long before I was diabetic, I ate only the allowed foods (see Viv's Modified Atkins Diet, in "Sticky Threads", and take out the oatcakes, Ryvita and All-bran). Eating this way gives you approx. 25g carb daily. For the first 4 weeks I counted calories, just out of interest.

Despite eating as much as I liked, including lots of butter, cheese and mayonnaise, I never ate more than 2000 calories in a day, was usually around 1500/1600, and sometimes went below 1300. I was never hungry, and the weight fell off.

I didn't drink any alcohol at all.

That's just my experience. This time round the loss has been slower, but now my BGs are under control I've been regularly eating a few more carbs. And the wine, of course - just empty calories!

So in my case, very-low-carb automatically limits my calories. Go too much higher - for me, over about 50g carb per day - and the calories seem to count.

Viv 8)

 

[borofergie]

So what happens when calories* decrease on a nationwide basis and that reduction comes mainly from from protein and fat with an increased dependence on sugar and refined carbohydrates ?
Guyanet writes on it here.

During the economic crisis, the prevalence of obesity declined by about half, and overweight declined or stayed the same depending on which data you believe. As calorie intake went back up during the economic recovery, obesity rebounded. The prevalence of underweight increased, suggesting that a small fraction of people weren't getting enough calories to maintain weight. Total mortality, diabetes, and coronary heart disease rates declined during the crisis

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/20 ... tural.html
also
Impact of Energy Intake, Physical Activity, and Population-wide Weight Loss on Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mortality in Cuba, 1980–2005
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/1 ... 74.long#F3

I like Guyenet a lot. Maybe I'm missing the point (which is highly probable) but I think that this is one of his weaker posts. It seems to be a blinding insight into the bloody obvious.

I'm not sure that anyone, including Taubes, thinks that you can get around the First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy). I remember him writing about extensively in GCBC: if you eat more calories than you expend, then you will gain weight. This is a scientific fact that no-one disputes.

If you restrict people's access to food (and therefore their calorie intake) they'll lose weight. In the Cuban example, calorific intake was decreased by 25% and people lost weight. Big deal. What would you expect? Unless you are living in abject poverty, or someone else is determining your food intake, this is of little practical importance.

What is important is how the food that you eat influences your appetite, and how much food you take on-board:
Taubes thinks that your appetite is largely governed by the hormonal response to the carbohydrate in your diet.
Guyenet thinks that your appetite in controlled by your CNS in response to the reward value of the food in your diet.
Taubes recommends a diet that is low in refined carbohydrate. Guyenet recommends a diet that is low in reward, which principally means, low in refined carbohydrates.

The only difference between them is that Taubes thinks that low-carb diets work because they control the hormone response and therefore reduce your appetite. Guyenet thinks that low-carb diets work because they are relatively bland and uninteresting and thus reduce the reward value of food, and thus your appetite. They both agree that low-carb diets are effective for weight loss. They both agree that low-carb diets are the most effective method of diabetic control.

refined carbohydrate and sugar are generally not healthy, and they do promote obesity and derail fat loss efforts. Say what? Although refined carbohydrate is secondary to energy intake when it comes to obesity, at any given level of energy intake, unrefined carbohydrate is generally superior to refined carbohydrate for overall health*. Also, foods made with refined carbohydrate and sugar promote overeating**, so they contribute to the energy excess that drives obesity and chronic disease.

I agree with them both. Carbohydrates make you fat, and are bad for diabetics.

When glucose is poison, it's better to eat fat.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk ... -diet.html

 

[googlegoss]

Thanks for all the replies, they are really helpful. Was walking to work quite a lot but last diabetic check up diagnosed me with anaemia. Doc was really worried and had to have camera both ends. The first camera was 8 days after seeing doc at surgery and the next one only three weeks later. Was worried because of how quick the doc had me at the hospital. None of the cameras found anything wrong whatsoever so still dont know why. Think maybe a girlie thing and the menopause. Have been really quite tired compared with normally so have not been walking at all. Have appointment at hospital on thursday for follow up to see where we go next. In the meantime, have been eating more cereal etc because of the extra iron in it but it doesnt help my bg's! Feel I cant win at the moment.

Will have to get back to low carbing because it does at least control by bg's. I just feel a bit in limbo til I find out more. Hopefully it will turn out to be nothing to worry about.

Its harder doing low carb as you have to think about every meal and cook from scratch etc and I dont like salads and raw veg which doesnt help when it comes to taking lunch to work. Am really struggling as to what to take other than a quiche. Any suggestions will be most welcome.

Thanks again for all your comments and help