• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2026 Survey »

Less carbs less hunger?

mo1905 said:
I'm all for a low carb diet but I can't understand how eating as much as you want can aid weight loss. We all have our daily calorific number we need to maintain a certain weight. Example, 3000cals, if we exceed this regularly on meat, sausages, eggs or whatever, we will store excess as fat ? Unless someone can explain better ?
Click to expand...

During a normal carb diet glucose is the main source of energy and glycolysis is the main metabolic pathway, where ATP and NADH are energy:
Glucose+2ATP+2NAD ---> 2Pyruvate +2ATP+2NADH
So 2 units of energy go into digestion and the carbs afford 4 energy back

During a low carb diet protein or fat becomes the main source of energy and gluconeogenesis becomes the main metabolic pathway where protein is broken into glucose
2 Pyruvate+ 4 ATP + 2 GTP + 2 NADH + 2 H > Glucose + 4 ADP + 2 GDP + 6 Pi + 2 NAD
The breakdown of the yielded glucose is the same as in glycolysis and so gives 4 energy back but it cost 6 units of energy to give the glucose from protein originally.
 
Andy12345 said:
so @Omar101 when you say you have to count calories YOU ARE WRONG

i didnt


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...
My whole point was that for anyone who comes to the forum not to take away that low carb works magically, I don't want people to be misinformed as they usually are by other misinformed posters, I could care less about you specifically.
 
I understand if you don't feel hungry. I just can't get my head around the "eat what you want" bit ! I also know that Andy has lost a lot of weight so I won't argue. Doesn't mean I understand though :-) I hate scientific papers !
 
My point is that most people don't need to understand that stuff. Fine for you if you want to, but it's mostly irrelevant to real life unless people have binge eating disorders. I thought this forum was a place for support, not blinding people with science that most of them don't give a rat's about.
 
Omar101 said:
During a normal carb diet glucose is the main source of energy and glycolysis is the main metabolic pathway, where ATP and NADH are energy:
Glucose+2ATP+2NAD ---> 2Pyruvate +2ATP+2NADH
So 2 units of energy go into digestion and the carbs afford 4 energy back

During a low carb diet protein or fat becomes the main source of energy and gluconeogenesis becomes the main metabolic pathway where protein is broken into glucose
2 Pyruvate+ 4 ATP + 2 GTP + 2 NADH + 2 H > Glucose + 4 ADP + 2 GDP + 6 Pi + 2 NAD
The breakdown of the yielded glucose is the same as in glycolysis and so gives 4 energy back but it cost 6 units of energy to give the glucose from protein originally.
Click to expand...
Thanks Omar but you really need to make this Sesame Street Stylie ! I have no clue what this means so I'll bow out :-) That's not meant to be a knock at your intelligence, it's my ignorance that worries me lol ! Also, what is a "normal carb diet" ?
 
ok im going to sleep, up in under 5 hours and im far too misinformed to have an argument with someone who couldnt care less about me lol i was gonna count sheep but now i suppose ill be counting calories jumping over that fence


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Indy51 said:
My point is that most people don't need to understand that stuff. Fine for you if you want to, but it's mostly irrelevant to real life unless people have binge eating disorders. I thought this forum was a place for support, not blinding people with science that most of them don't give a rat's about.
Click to expand...
Yes you're right, I must admit toward the end Andy getting upset was kind of amusing me.
Andy12345 said:
ok im going to sleep, up in under 5 hours and im far too misinformed to have an argument with someone who couldnt care less about me lol i was gonna count sheep but now i suppose ill be counting calories jumping over that fence


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...
heh
 
mo1905 said:
Thanks Omar but you really need to make this Sesame Street Stylie ! I have no clue what this means so I'll bow out :) That's not meant to be a knock at your intelligence, it's my ignorance that worries me lol ! Also, what is a "normal carb diet" ?
Click to expand...

Basically protein/fat costs more energy than carb to breakdown for energy so you can eat more when no carbs are involved!

Normal carb would be anything above 70g carb a day though most people take 200+ a day. 200+g a day is also recommended by most health organisations though I would disagree with them.
 
Omar101 said:
weightloss is still caused by a caloric deficit.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly, interestingly, and crucially, this is not true. This is the "thermodynamic fallacy" or "calorie fallacy" that raged earlier on in the low carb debate. As a low carber and student of metabolism I'm surprised you are repeating this fallacy.

You and I as T1s are both experimental proof of this fallacy. Weight gain or loss is regulated by anabolic hormones, not calorific deficit/surplus, which is at best a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition.

As an undiagnosed T1 I had a massive caloric surplus but experienced dramatic weight loss. This is because the dominant factor is not caloric surplus but high blood insulin. Insulin is anabolic and in its presence, surplus calories of any kind will be deposited as extra body weight. In the absence of insulin there will be weight loss regardless of the caloric intake or thermodynamic surplus. The surplus is simply excreted.
 
Omar101 said:
Basically protein/fat costs more energy than carb to breakdown for energy so you can eat more when no carbs are involved!
Click to expand...

Omar, I don't think this is correct. Not that it matters much. It's an illogical argument if you think it through - "you can eat more calories of fat because there are less net calories" - that just means fewer net calories. No "free lunch" there. So I am not sure that you understand metabolically how low carb diets work.
 
Omar101 said:
Basically protein/fat costs more energy than carb to breakdown for energy so you can eat more when no carbs are involved!
Click to expand...
Spiker said:
Surprisingly, interestingly, and crucially, this is not true. This is the "thermodynamic fallacy" or "calorie fallacy" that raged earlier on in the low carb debate. As a low carber and student of metabolism I'm surprised you are repeating this fallacy.

You and I as T1s are both experimental proof of this fallacy. Weight gain or loss is regulated by anabolic hormones, not calorific deficit/surplus, which is at best a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition.

As an undiagnosed T1 I had a massive caloric surplus but experienced dramatic weight loss. This is because the dominant factor is not caloric surplus but high blood insulin. Insulin is anabolic and in its presence, surplus calories of any kind will be deposited as extra body weight. In the absence of insulin there will be weight loss regardless of the caloric intake or thermodynamic surplus. The surplus is simply excreted.
Click to expand...
Yes true, I should have addressed this when I was speaking that the weightloss during a low carb diet is due to reduced anabolic influence of insulin which causes a "caloric deficit".

Spiker said:
Omar, I don't think this is correct. Not that it matters much. It's an illogical argument if you think it through - "you can eat more calories of fat because there are less net calories" - that just means fewer net calories. No "free lunch" there. So I am not sure that you understand metabolically how low carb diets work.
Click to expand...

It is one aspect that leads to less energy production, gluconeogenesis is obviously not the single metabolic process occuring in the body. For a healthy individual a caloric excess creates the hormonal environment that allows weightgain especially with the presence of carbs/insulin.
 
The 'eat what you like' claim is true, not "marketing", and it's purpose isn't to attract people who "never counted a calorie" (which is quite insulting) - quite on the contrary. It is both a true and relevant claim. Relevant because demonstrably the evidence shows clearly that calorie controlled diets do not work - not across populations and not over time, obviously with individual exceptions. And because individuals with experience of calorie controlled diets know that they fail, so they want something different. That's not "marketing", it's improvement in knowledge and method based on evidence, data, experience. And it's awesome. Compared to the thermodynamic fallacy, it does seem like magic. I have had long arguments about it with a quantum chemist. It's not intuitive. But it is true.
 
Omar101 said:
the weightloss during a low carb diet is due to reduced anabolic influence of insulin which causes a "caloric deficit" .
Click to expand...

Still no. The weight loss is wholly caused by the absence of insulin and is totally independent of any caloric surplus or caloric deficit. As my body and yours proves. Calling a low insulin state a "caloric deficit" is at best, a circular argument by definition. Weight loss occurs in a sufficiently low insulin state even in a calorie surplus. If you are redefining a "calorie surplus" as a "calorie deficit" in order to make your point... good luck with that! :-)
 
Spiker said:
The 'eat what you like' claim is true, not "marketing", and it's purpose isn't to attract people who "never counted a calorie" (which is quite insulting) - quite on the contrary. It is both a true and relevant claim. Relevant because demonstrably the evidence shows clearly that calorie controlled diets do not work - not across populations and not over time, obviously with individual exceptions. And because individuals with experience of calorie controlled diets know that they fail, so they want something different. That's not "marketing", it's improvement in knowledge and method based on evidence, data, experience. And it's awesome. Compared to the thermodynamic fallacy, it does seem like magic. I have had long arguments about it with a quantum chemist. It's not intuitive. But it is true.
Click to expand...

Going to have to disagree with all of that, caloric deficits have been shown to work and have worked in my own experience only going to single digit percentages of bodyfat does the body require a hormonal change to allow the continued loss of fat. I've experienced this and I've also added mass on less than 30g of carbs a day, it took over 4k calories a day though due to the reduced anabolic environment.

Could you link some journal studies of what you are describing, I'm genuinely interested here and want to be proved wrong as I'm a supporter of low carb/high fat but the evidence for calorie intake is too strong. Though I do think we would destroy the "nature" of this forum with continued scientific discussion
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Omar101 said:
During a normal carb diet glucose is the main source of energy and glycolysis is the main metabolic pathway, where ATP and NADH are energy:
Glucose+2ATP+2NAD ---> 2Pyruvate +2ATP+2NADH
So 2 units of energy go into digestion and the carbs afford 4 energy back

During a low carb diet protein or fat becomes the main source of energy and gluconeogenesis becomes the main metabolic pathway where protein is broken into glucose
2 Pyruvate+ 4 ATP + 2 GTP + 2 NADH + 2 H > Glucose + 4 ADP + 2 GDP + 6 Pi + 2 NAD
The breakdown of the yielded glucose is the same as in glycolysis and so gives 4 energy back but it cost 6 units of energy to give the glucose from protein originally.
Click to expand...

All true but not really relevant (and you forgot lipolysis). The inefficiency in the gluconeogenesis pathway explains why insulin dosing in a LCHP diet is tricky (another good reason to do LCHF instead) but it's not the reason why LC diets work.

Still we probably should "take this outside" Omar, as I'm not sure anyone else is bothered about the science. :-)
 
The fact that you think insulin is the ONLY determining factor in weightloss and that you can eat any amount and lose weight is a
Spiker said:
All true but not really relevant (and you forgot lipolysis). The inefficiency in the gluconeogenesis pathway explains why insulin dosing in a LCHP diet is tricky (another good reason to do LCHF instead) but it's not the reason why LC diets work.

Still we probably should "take this outside" Omar, as I'm not sure anyone else is bothered about the science. :)
Click to expand...
Yes we should, if i were interested in having this discussion, I'm not however as you haven't provided any actual data and the fact that you think insulin is the ONLY determining factor in weightloss and that you can eat any amount and lose weight is actually laughable any of my peers would laugh you out of the lab with that one.
 
Back
Top