Is weight loss really ALL about calories?

[pdmjoker]

In the recent, infamous Mail on Sunday article about Dr Unwin and bananas, we have:

Dr Unwin's patients undoubtedly lost weight. This will be, Prof Kar says, because they were consuming fewer calories than they burned – not specifically because they'd cut out carbs.​

(Professor Partha Kar is NHS England's chief diabetes expert.)

He's repeating the "it's all about calories" argument.

Just one counterexample would invalidate the "it's all about calories" argument, or at least show it has limited scope.

I wonder if Prof Kar ever saw: http://live.smashthefat.com/5000-calorie-challenge-day-21/ and http://live.smashthefat.com/5000-calorie-carb-challenge-day-21/

An interesting n=1 experiment by a guy named Sam Feltham. Sam did a 21 day experiment eating 5000 calories daily with a low-carb high fat composition. He gained 1.3 kg (just under 3 lbs); but lost 3 cm on his waist.

Sam repeated the 21 day experiment with the same calories, but with a high carb, low fat diet. He put on 7.1kg weight and his waist increased 9.25 cm.

His weight gain on Low Fat is close to what is predicted by the "Calories" model, but the Calories model doesn't seem to be accurate with Low Carb. This serves as a counterexample.

(Sam's experiment seems credible and I haven't yet come across anything saying otherwise. Have you?)

 

[LaoDan]

I think burn rate, metabolism, BMR need to be considered. Did Sam exercise or watch Netflix all day? What would happen if Sam ate actual daily metabolic burn rate minus 10% for 21 days?

 

[HSSS]

Not quite the same but it does argue against prof Karr and diet for diabetes not being all about weight loss. Study matching calories still saw diabetic improvement on low carb without weight loss. Usually it’s the weight loss that gets the credit not the low carb.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620100036.htm

 

[pdmjoker]

I think burn rate, metabolism, BMR need to be considered. Did Sam exercise or watch Netflix all day? ...

If Sam's level of activity for the two phases (Low Carb and Low Fat) were sufficiently similar then there is surely no need to do as you suggest since the outcomes were markedly different? (And suggest he would lose weight on about 4000 calories per day Low Carb but gain weight on 4000 calories per day Low Fat.)

Study matching calories still saw diabetic improvement on low carb without weight loss.

Helpful. Thank you. The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable by Stephen D. Phinney & Jeff S. Volek suggests Low Carb improves IR, but I gather as what causes IR isn't completely understood that leaves the door open for various theories...

 

[Oldvatr]

There is only one fuel that our bodies use for energy. Pyruvate which is the heart of the Citric Cycle. Pyruvate is a acetyl molecule that gets stripped out and burnt in the muscle cells. We do not burn fat or glucose We burn ATP and NADH through the process of glycolysis. One molecule of glucose makes up to 28 molecules of ATP. Lipids are more dense and produce more ATP per chain. But not all glucose gets used in muscles to produce motion. It also makes other molecules for the brain to use, and also makes glycerol for cholesterol and cell membranes. So not all consumed energy is for making us get up to put the kettle on. Lipids similarly are not all used for motion. A lot of the lipid energy goes in keeping our temperature steady and protecting our skin and vital organs, and just holding everything together in the right places.

Every time a molecule gets stripped down it takes energy, and this is the major contributor to the equation that is ignored. Complex chains such as fats, starches, and soluble fibres use the most energy to
break apart.
So much of our so called energy is expended in what could be termed basal activities at a fairly constant rate. We breathe, we think, we fart. Exercise is on top of this loading. So doing HIT is only addressing only a small part of the problem.

The other component of weight is water. A large component of our food intake is water, Glucose is stored as glucogen which is ([ 1x glucose + 4 x water) as globules of fat So while glucose is indeed linked to calories, the water is not.

For fats the lipids store triglycerides and not much else. So adipose fat is much more dense than muscle fat, but is the hardest to shift. It is the body's long term storehouse, whereas muscle fat is for sprinters and HIT.

We lose glycogen store first, so are losing fewer calories but more weight at first. When those get depleted then we start raiding the lipid stores, starting with what is already in the blood, then the adipose tissues.

So some calories are more important than others. Glucogen is the main storage for glucose, which mostly comes directly from carbs and is our short term storage facility. It goes into most cells in the body, both muscle and adipose Fat goes to the liver and bacon areas i.e. it goes direct into storage and only goes to the muscles when needed (e.g. Liver Dump or Dawn Phenomenon). But there are confounders in the equation. Our body can convert from glucose to lipid, and also in reverse. Out body can and does leak glucose via the kidneys, and fat via the bile duct and gall bladder. It can also remove the enzymes that act on digesting the food to stop the bits getting into the bloodstream in the first place, These things are why the CICO model is poor in explaining weight loss. It assumes our bodies act in the same way as the calorimeters used to measure calorific value, and we are not built that way.

The Low Fat mantra comes from the belief that because lipids go direct to the adipose tissue, as fat, This means that every gram of fat you eat must end up around your tummy and thighs, It also assumes that the ONLY way to remove this stored fat is by exercise or liposuction. But exercise attacks the other storehouse first, which makes us hungry, and so we eat more. This mantra also ignores the role of Grehlin, which is the turn off the tap enzyme that tells us we have had enough and are sated.

By using a Low Carb diet we have found by experiment that we can reduce our glycogen stores by diet, which also lends itself to using up the lipid stores without needing to do marathon running or weight training As a pensioner I read the Gov guidelines that to cover Mars bar requires (X) miles run, or (X+XX) miles walk, and my immediate reaction was Up Yours Sunshine.

 

[Oldvatr]

If Sam's level of activity for the two phases (Low Carb and Low Fat) were sufficiently similar then there is surely no need to do as you suggest since the outcomes were markedly different? (And suggest he would lose weight on about 4000 calories per day Low Carb but gain weight on 4000 calories per day Low Fat.)

Helpful. Thank you. The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable by Stephen D. Phinney & Jeff S. Volek suggests Low Carb improves IR, but I gather as what causes IR isn't completely understood that leaves the door open for various theories...

New study compares Very Low Carb vs Low Fat diets on an elderly cohort
https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-020-00481-9

 

[NicoleC1971]

Whilst finding Oldvatr's summary of the krebbs cycle etc. really clear I also like Zoe Harcombe's take on this:

 

[Deleted member 475901]

My low carb diet was definitely not low calorie as I was eating double cream, cheese, etc. everyday!

 

[Oldvatr]

My low carb diet was definitely not low calorie as I was eating double cream, cheese, etc. everyday!

Did you put on any weight? did you balloon? How did your lipids fare? Did your gall bladder explode? Or hopefully, None of the above.

Lastly were you made to feel guilty. I get that every day, and I am a 10 stone weakling TOFI.

 

[ringi]

One large problem is that few people can count all the calories they consume, and very few people have the long term will power to keep to a calories limit when hungry. Hence "moderate calories counting diets" don't work long term for many people. People also tend to greatly overestimate the number of additional calories (compared to doing nothing) that they use while exercising.

Many people have most of their calories in snacks and drinks, eg unplanned intake, due to feeling hungry a short time after meals. So if hunger can't be control by a diet, the diet will not work long term.

Many people when they think about it discover that some food/drinks makes them more hungry. There is a reasons the waiter brings "free" bread before the menu. Likewise many people are addicted to suger, and telling an addict to have something in modulation does not work.

One of the reasons people feel hungry is when BG drops quickly, if a meal results in a large increase in BG, it will later result in a large drop in BG. This large increase in BG is due to the carb content of the meal.

Hence I believe low carb is the best option for everyone with type2 diabetes, and there is no need to disgard the scientific (and none practical) concept of calories to believe so.

The people who do get good results from "moderate calories counting diets", are unlikely to be reading this forum or have type2 diabete. Hence it reasonble to assume it will not work for the people who need them to work.

 

[Andydragon]

One large problem is that few people can count all the calories they consume, and very few people have the long term will power to keep to a calories limit when hungry. Hence "moderate calories counting diets" don't work long term for many people. People also tend to greatly overestimate the number of additional calories (compared to doing nothing) that they use while exercising.

Many people have most of their calories in snacks and drinks, eg unplanned intake, due to feeling hungry a short time after meals. So if hunger can't be control by a diet, the diet will not work long term.

Many people when they think about it discover that some food/drinks makes them more hungry. There is a reasons the waiter brings "free" bread before the menu. Likewise many people are addicted to suger, and telling an addict to have something in modulation does not work.

One of the reasons people feel hungry is when BG drops quickly, if a meal results in a large increase in BG, it will later result in a large drop in BG. This large increase in BG is due to the carb content of the meal.

Hence I believe low carb is the best option for everyone with type2 diabetes, and there is no need to disgard the scientific (and none practical) concept of calories to believe so.

The people who do get good results from "moderate calories counting diets", are unlikely to be reading this forum or have type2 diabete. Hence it reasonble to assume it will not work for the people who need them to work.

I weigh pretty much everything I eat now and do keep a daily record of what I eat and exercise. I know there will be inaccuracy as I don’t record things like coffee I have but it’s just a way for me to roughly keep track

I also know that the calorie burnt via the exercise recording is hugely inaccurate especially as I get slimmer the amount I burn will be less. But it’s more for me just a track of what I’m doing and to ensure I do something. It’s my own personal push to maintain 30min minimum a day.

I have noticed the better I get, the lower my heart rate and so my watch doesn’t think I am exercising on the walks and my calorie level “burnt” has slowed a lot

I think where people use it as a way to offset the snacks that’s where the risk is.

 

[ringi]

I have noticed the better I get, the lower my heart rate and so my watch doesn’t think I am exercising on the walks

Try finding a hill to walk up, or try HIIT. Short exercise that makes your body works (resistance training and/or HIIT) tend to give better result then spending a long time doing steady state easy exercise. But remember "easy" is define by how your body responds, not what other people do.

 

[Andydragon]

Try finding a hill to walk up, or try HIIT. Short exercise that makes your body works (resistance training and/or HIIT) tend to give better result then spending a long time doing steady state easy exercise. But remember "easy" is define by how your body responds, not what other people do.

Most of my exercise is on a stationary bike but yes. Am trying to go on the local hills. As I said though, it’s only a reading on a watch I know isn’t that accurate. As long as I keep my circles closed it is the motivation I need

I do not have the confidence to go to the gym and I don’t have equipment to do more than walking or the bike but working out I’ve lost over 20% of my body has given me the push to keep going

the doctors/nurses may not necessarily like low carb but the results couple with exercise cannot be argued

 

[Andydragon]

In the recent, infamous Mail on Sunday article about Dr Unwin and bananas, we have:

Dr Unwin's patients undoubtedly lost weight. This will be, Prof Kar says, because they were consuming fewer calories than they burned – not specifically because they'd cut out carbs.​

(Professor Partha Kar is NHS England's chief diabetes expert.)

He's repeating the "it's all about calories" argument.

Just one counterexample would invalidate the "it's all about calories" argument, or at least show it has limited scope.

I wonder if Prof Kar ever saw: http://live.smashthefat.com/5000-calorie-challenge-day-21/ and http://live.smashthefat.com/5000-calorie-carb-challenge-day-21/

An interesting n=1 experiment by a guy named Sam Feltham. Sam did a 21 day experiment eating 5000 calories daily with a low-carb high fat composition. He gained 1.3 kg (just under 3 lbs); but lost 3 cm on his waist.

Sam repeated the 21 day experiment with the same calories, but with a high carb, low fat diet. He put on 7.1kg weight and his waist increased 9.25 cm.

His weight gain on Low Fat is close to what is predicted by the "Calories" model, but the Calories model doesn't seem to be accurate with Low Carb. This serves as a counterexample.

(Sam's experiment seems credible and I haven't yet come across anything saying otherwise. Have you?)

Thing is about the waist size... I weigh more than my partner but he has a larger stomach and looks heavier than I am. But we are the same height

I tend to put on weight across my entire body, so have larger thighs. Where as he. And others I know, put it on around the waist

so does different food types store fat in different places?

the difference in weight gain is interesting but doesn’t high carb increase water too?

 

[ringi]

Most of my exercise is on a stationary bike but yes

Maybe try going as fast as you can for 2 minutes on a high resistance, then go slowly on a low resistance until your heart rate drops, repeating a few times.

 

[Andydragon]

Maybe try going as fast as you can for 2 minutes on a high resistance, then go slowly on a low resistance until your heart rate drops, repeating a few times.

Yeah, I have an iFit membership as part of the membership and there are some interval I can do. Once my new tattoo has healed a bit more I shall do some stuff to work up a sweat

 

[Mr_Pot]

Has anyone got actual records of how many calories they ate before and after adopting a LCHF diet? I suspect I eat a lot less but I can't confirm that. The first thing I did when diagnosed was give up foods that are actually sweet like cakes, biscuits and desserts. That must represent a lot of calories on their own. Add to that roast potatoes, chips and pizzas, pies and pastries, cereals and bread, the total must have been very high. People often claim they are eating more fat so their calories must have increased but my fruit and nut muesli with milk had more calories than my bacon and egg.

 

[zand]

I haven't done a 21 day experiment but here's a 5 day experiment I did a while back. I thought I would see what happened if I took LCHF to the extreme. I had less exercise than normal during the 5 days, so the weight loss can't be attributed to that. Here's the average macros.

Carbs 2.74%
Fat 92.69%
Protein 4.57%

calories 2312


https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/my-5-day-dairy-fat-fast.81433/

 

[Mr_Pot]

I haven't done a 21 day experiment but here's a 5 day experiment I did a while back. I thought I would see what happened if I took LCHF to the extreme. I had less exercise than normal during the 5 days, so the weight loss can't be attributed to that. Here's the average macros.

Carbs 2.74%
Fat 92.69%
Protein 4.57%

calories 2312


https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/my-5-day-dairy-fat-fast.81433/

But how many calories did you eat before you started low carb?

 

[DCUKMod]

In the recent, infamous Mail on Sunday article about Dr Unwin and bananas, we have:

Dr Unwin's patients undoubtedly lost weight. This will be, Prof Kar says, because they were consuming fewer calories than they burned – not specifically because they'd cut out carbs.​

(Professor Partha Kar is NHS England's chief diabetes expert.)

He's repeating the "it's all about calories" argument.

Just one counterexample would invalidate the "it's all about calories" argument, or at least show it has limited scope.

I wonder if Prof Kar ever saw: http://live.smashthefat.com/5000-calorie-challenge-day-21/ and http://live.smashthefat.com/5000-calorie-carb-challenge-day-21/

An interesting n=1 experiment by a guy named Sam Feltham. Sam did a 21 day experiment eating 5000 calories daily with a low-carb high fat composition. He gained 1.3 kg (just under 3 lbs); but lost 3 cm on his waist.

Sam repeated the 21 day experiment with the same calories, but with a high carb, low fat diet. He put on 7.1kg weight and his waist increased 9.25 cm.

His weight gain on Low Fat is close to what is predicted by the "Calories" model, but the Calories model doesn't seem to be accurate with Low Carb. This serves as a counterexample.

(Sam's experiment seems credible and I haven't yet come across anything saying otherwise. Have you?)

If you read Sam's mini-biog here, you'll not his background. Based on that I have my doubts he'd be sofa sitting for the whole time: https://phcuk.org/director/