Diet advice for a first timer

[tigerfan482]

Counting calories in my opinion is the worst way to loose weight because most people will never be able to stick with it for a long period of time.

Plus a calorie isn't just a calorie.

Well chances are if you can't stick with calorie counting, then you're not going to be able to stick with carb counting or fat counting or anything else. If you're serious about losing weight, then it is easier to get into the habit of paying attention to what you eat. Plus, I did mention you also need to work in exercise and you still need a balanced diet.

And, essentially, a calorie is a calorie. Calories are the measure of energy you body uses to maintain itself. In what form those calories come is generally irrelevant in a limited calorie diet. If you eat high calorie foods, such as those that are high in carbs, sugars, fats, etc., then you're going to hit the calorie goal much quicker than if you eat healthier, lower calorie foods. Calories are like a summary of what's in a food. If you eat low calorie foods, chances are you're also going to be eating low-fat, low-carb, low-sugar food as well. So at the end of the day, if my body requires 2000 calories to maintain its weight and I eat 1800 calories - whether it be in the form of fat, sugar, carbs, or what have you - then I am going to lose weight because my body will need to process 200 more calories from fat stored.

 

[Laufey]

People on low-calorie diets usually eat less than people who count carbs.

Eating less is more difficult than eating different and not as likely to last for a long period of time.

The study suggests that a low-glycemic load diet is more effective than conventional approaches at burning calories (and keeping energy expenditure) at a higher rate after weight loss. “We’ve found that, contrary to nutritional dogma, all calories are not created equal,” says Ludwig, who is also director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital. “Total calories burned plummeted by 300 calories on the low-fat diet compared to the low-carbohydrate diet, which would equal the number of calories typically burned in an hour of moderate-intensity physical activity,” he says.

Read more: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

 

[tigerfan482]

People on low-calorie diets usually eat less than people who count carbs.

Eating less is more difficult than eating different and not as likely to last for a long period of time.

Actually eating less becomes easier as your stomach physically shrinks. I know because I've been doing it for the past 4-5 months. I feel full eating half of what I used to eat for a meal. Part of losing weight for people who are overweight is the need to shrink the stomach so you don't have to eat as much to fill up.

Also, the quote you provided does nothing to dispel the idea of watching total caloric intake instead of trying to limit a particular nutritional item in foods. That whole study is comparing the various "fad" diets (low-carb, low-fat, and low-glycemic index). It doesn't compare any of those to a diet of simply watching total caloric intake. Each of those diets focuses on limiting the source of the calories you take in, not the number of calories themselves. Limiting the number of calories you eat will, in every case, lead to weight lose if you eat below the number required to maintain your current weight. As I said before, calories is an overall measure of energy you take in from food. The source of those calories is mostly irrelevant if you are on a low overall calorie diet to lose weight. Now there are other health considerations to take into account, which is why I suggested eating a balanced low-calorie diet and not get your 1800 calories a day from Swedish Fish. You can also eat more when you figure in exercise, which burns more calories and gives you a higher ceiling to work with. Again, that's why I suggested also working in an exercise routine once you've started to lose weight.

 

[Benvolio]

That is incorrect. Some protein "calories", for instance, are not burned as energy, but are used as building material to maintain tissue. The body does not necessarily process fats, protein and carbohydrates the same way.
The very low carb diet works well, without regard to the number of calories eaten. It is physiologically different from other diets. No, you do not need to count carbs if you avoid carbs altogether. It is not a metter of degree. There is sharp line at, in my experience at about 40 carbs. Fewer, and you will produce ketones and lose weight rapidly. Above the line, the physiology changes, the body does not produce ketones, and weight loss slows. People who fail on the diet have tried to eat carbs too close to the line, and turn it off.
Because you are eating few carbs, the body produces less insulin and thus less craving for food, and you naturally eat less overall food.
A very low carb diet is not a fad diet. It is a physiologically different diet than others. There has been a lot of research on low carb diets, readily available on google.

 

[tigerfan482]

That is incorrect. Some protein "calories", for instance, are not burned as energy, but are used as building material to maintain tissue. The body does not necessarily process fats, protein and carbohydrates the same way.
The very low carb diet works well, without regard to the number of calories eaten. It is physiologically different from other diets. No, you do not need to count carbs if you avoid carbs altogether. It is not a metter of degree. There is sharp line at, in my experience at about 40 carbs. Fewer, and you will produce ketones and lose weight rapidly. Above the line, the physiology changes, the body does not produce ketones, and weight loss slows. People who fail on the diet have tried to eat carbs too close to the line, and turn it off.
Because you are eating few carbs, the body produces less insulin and thus less craving for food, and you naturally eat less overall food.
A very low carb diet is not a fad diet. It is a physiologically different diet than others. There has been a lot of research on low carb diets, readily available on google.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/03/144632723/calories-trump-protein-for-weight-loss
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/calorie2.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

Pay special attention to the last paragraph of that last link. You can find many more articles by Googling them. The point is that if you eat fewer calories than your body needs on a daily basis, you will lose weight. If you eat more calories than your body needs, then you will indeed need to pay attention to where those calories come from (protein will be processed into lean muscle mass, fat and sugars will be processed into stored fat, etc.) However, since I am saying you need to take in FEWER calories than your body needs, then it does not in fact matter where those calories come from, just that certain types of foods will get you to that number quicker than others.

 

[Benvolio]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/03/144632723/calories-trump-protein-for-weight-loss
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/calorie2.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/is-a-calorie-a-calorie.html

Pay special attention to the last paragraph of that last link. You can find many more articles by Googling them. The point is that if you eat fewer calories than your body needs on a daily basis, you will lose weight. If you eat more calories than your body needs, then you will indeed need to pay attention to where those calories come from (protein will be processed into lean muscle mass, fat and sugars will be processed into stored fat, etc.) However, since I am saying you need to take in FEWER calories than your body needs, then it does not in fact matter where those calories come from, just that certain types of foods will get you to that number quicker than others.

Again, I believe that there are advantages to a faster diet than a slow one. But I have not seen evidence proving that a very low carb diet needs to involve taking in fewer calories than consumed, and that was not Dr Atkins experience. The last article above notes a study showing that more heat is generated on a low carb diet. Notice also that it and similar articles betray a prejudice by equating a low carb diet with a high fat diet. It need not be. The study which involved changes in the composition of a liquid diet and concluding that it made no difference does not seem to have involved a very low carb, i.e. ketogenic diet which is physiologically different.

 

[KaraBulut]

At what point did we stop providing advice to the OP?

 

[tigerfan482]

Again, I believe that there are advantages to a faster diet than a slow one. But I have not seen evidence proving that a very low carb diet needs to involve taking in fewer calories than consumed, and that was not Dr Atkins experience. The last article above notes a study showing that more heat is generated on a low carb diet. Notice also that it and similar articles betray a prejudice by equating a low carb diet with a high fat diet. It need not be. The study which involved changes in the composition of a liquid diet and concluding that it made no difference does not seem to have involved a very low carb, i.e. ketogenic diet which is physiologically different.

A low calorie diet is a fast diet. Like in my personal experience, I have lost around 40 pounds in 4 months. And a low-carb diet does take in fewer calories because carbs are one of the highest source of calories in food. So not eating carbs would lower your calorie intake. There is also a plethora of evidence that shows that eating more calories than your body burns will cause you to gain weight.

You need to re-read the last article again. While it also makes arguments for choosing a low-carb diet over a low-fat diet, it does nothing to support your claim that low calorie diets aren't as effective as a low-carb diet. In fact, it does the exact opposite.

In 1964, investigators at the Institute for Metabolic Research in Oakland, California tested these ideas in a study involving five obese patients sequestered in a hospital metabolic ward. They gave each patient a liquid diet containing a precise number of calories calculated to induce weight loss. Every few weeks they changed the diets, varying the amounts of the three macronutrients. Patients initially ate a diet with 34 percent of calories from protein, 52 percent from fat, and 14 percent from carbs. Those numbers then changed to 27, 13, and 60 percent, respectively, and finally to 14, 83, and 3 percent, respectively.

The investigators reported that all patients in the study lost weight at a constant rate regardless of the macronutrient proportions. "It is therefore obvious," they wrote in the journal Metabolism, "that the significant factor responsible for weight loss is reduction of calories, irrespective of the composition of the diet."

At what point did we stop providing advice to the OP?

We never stopped. There were several pieces of advice offered and the pros and cons are now being presented. It provides a well-informed set of data for the OP to choose from.

 

[Benvolio]

The 1964 study does not appear to have been a very low carb--ketogenic--diet. Clearly a lot of research has been done since that time. 1964 preceeded the Atkins diet and the Stillman diet which preceeded it. The 2012 study cited showed that on a "very low" carb diet the body processes calories less efficiently resulting in more weight loss.
While your diet has been very successful, a very low carb diet would, I think,
have been even faster. But since it works for you and you are comfortable with it, I would agree that it probably will help you learn to control your weight better. The difficulty is that for whatever reason, most people, myself included, are not able to be successful on the low calorie diet. No matter how diligently I follow it, I lose a little at first and then it just stops working. Americans are getting fatter and fatter, and when they go to the doctor, they are told, just count your calories and exercise. It is not working.

 

[Laufey]

No matter how diligently I follow it, I lose a little at first and then it just stops working. Americans are getting fatter and fatter, and when they go to the doctor, they are told, just count your calories and exercise. It is not working.

When 90% of food products have starch and/or added sugars in them it's pretty difficult to not eat too many carbs.

It's typical for the average person to cut out all candy when dieting without much success... well that's because for most people the candy is just a small amount of the total sugar consumption since it's added to so many products.

Also the whole "eat as much fruits and vegetables as you want" isn't a good advice since you can easily get too much sugar from fruits if you are having them all the time. A watermelon raises your bloodsugar more than a Coke or a chocolate bar.