low carb or counting calories
 

For the people who have tried both, which diet would you say works better? A low carb diet or counting calories?

Counting calories sounds good because it would allow me to eat carbohydrates which I love, but if a low carb diet gives better results than a low calorie diet then I would rather go low carb. What would be best to do?

I'm so tired of trying to find the right diet. I've read about so many different diets the past week that my head hurts.

First of all what works for you will not always work for someone else.
I have changed my opinion many times in the last year about what works for me and what doesn't. It is based on research and trial and error. I try something for about 2 weeks. I now only rely on my body fat, measurements and how clothes fit and see if it is working.

That said, I do a combination of moderate carbs and calorie counting.

For me a high carb diet triggers cravings and overeating.
I eat at least 5 times a day sometimes six.
I eat a lean protein and several servings of vegetables each time I eat.
I only eat other carbs like fruit in the morning and other carbs like oats and grains after I exercise. But my goals may be different than yours. I'm into fat burning right now and I like to weight lift.

I eat my largest meal in the morning and I carb cycle meaning for 3 days my carbs are about 30% of my calories and then 1 day they are about 40%.

This is not a diet to me it is a lifestyle and I will never go back to obese again.

I did the Atkins diet and I have to say I didn't find such a low-carb lifestyle to be sustainable.
Sure, I lost a lot of weight very quickly but I put it all back on and then some because I simply could not eat like that for ever. As soon as I started introducing carbs back in I lost control and ate and ate. People I know who have done low-carb diets have found the same.
I am calorie counting at the moment and the weight is coming off more slowly but I can pretty much eat what I want so I know I will be able to do this for the rest of my life easily. I won't lose control because I am not denying myself anything. So I think, on that basis, low calorie diets give better long-term results.
It really does depend on you though, some people have amazing long-term success on low-carb plans but I think (and this is just my opinion) that counting calories is the most viable way to control and lose weight.

I agree with the above. I've never done low carb as I know for me it would be unsustainable. Rice and pasta particularly are a regular part of my diet as is lots of fruit - I would feel deprived limiting these. I don't have problems with control of these things either like some and don't eat many bread products. I can eat my 50g and be satisfied.

I can't really compare weightloss between the two but I will say that I have lost 70+ lbs in the last 9 months calorie counting.

Kitty

I've used every excuse in the book to avoid low-carb dieting. Even when my doctor diagnosed me with insulin resistance and recommended I try a reduced-carb diet, as he put it "because it seems to be more effective for insulin resistant patients." I still couldn't shake all the arguments I had heard and internalized over the years against low-carb dieting: - it's unhealthy - it's unsustainable - when you add back any carbs you'll regain it all - you're hair will fall out - you'll get constipated, it'll give you bad breath....

Maybe even a few of the arguments are true, but you know it's the only eating plan that I can consistently lose weight on, without being dead-tired and ravenously food-obsessed-hungry 24/7. I tried the philisophical compromise, the South Beach Diet, and did well at first, but found that I could "abuse" low-glycemic carbs, nearly as badly as high-glycemic ones. For me, I may have to come to grips with the possibility that high glycemic foods will always trigger severe carb cravings, and I may have to consider avoiding them forever.

And yet, I still log my food and even calories, besides carbs, more out of habit than anything else. Which is how I found out that I actually AM able to eat more calories on a low-carb plan while losing more weight. And I've had energy to exercise more than I have in months. (I did skip "induction" this time around, because I'm taking metformin, a diabetic medication, which makes me ill if I go to low-carb). I pretty much thought it was all hype and that "a calorie is a calorie," and any extra weight loss from low-carbing was because of reduced hunger and as a result reduced calories (not that this shouldn't have been reason enough for me to commit to it).

To be honest, I pretty much thought the concept of "carb-addiction" was ridiculous. But, since I've been doing more reading (and self-experimenting), I think there really is something to the theory. I can't say whether it is or is not "the most viable," way to lose weight. While there's a lot of research that shows few who attempt to lose weight succeed long-term, there isn't a lot of research on how the successful ones are doing it. Sustainability has a lot to do with what you're willing to do long-term. Not sure I even have that answer for myself yet, but I agree that if you read the Atkins and other low-carb books, maintanance-level and even while losing, more and more carbs are introduced until the person finds (I'm sure JerseyGyrl would know the term) the carb-level at which they feel the best and can still lose or maintain their weight at a comfortable level. I'm still trying to find that "sweet spot," so to speak, but I don't think it's any different or any more difficult than a calorie counter finding the right calorie level and any dieter finding what foods are easier to avoid than eat in moderation.

I would definitely suggest that anyone not getting decent results on calorie counting to at least try low carb. Yes, it may mean changing the way they think about food forever, but what successful plan doesn't. If the only success you have is on low carb, then "sustainability" is really a mute point. In order to succeed, you have to learn to work with the plan.

You will have to excuse the scientist in me but research actually shows that they work about the same for weight loss. This is really a matter of what works for you. The best diet for you is the one you can stick to for life. You should not view this as something you go on and off but as a way of eating for the rest of your life so that you can maintain your weight loss. You may want to familiarize yourself with a couple from each category to decide what will work best for you.

I think it comes down to personal choice, with callorie counting some people eat a lot of junk as long as its low calorie , and some people do think that low carb alows you to eat as much bacon, cheese, etc.. I think whichever plan you chose you need to focus on healthy food. For me low carb works best and is something I can do for life. I keep track of everything in fitday and so I'm keeping track of how many callories I'm eating but haven't needed to restrict them while on low carb. I think reading as many books as possible is a good idea, your library may have "Living the low carb life" by Johny Bowden, "Good calories bad calories" by Gary Taubs, Atkins new diet revolution. For me it is important to understand why I need to eat some foods and avoid others for health and for weight loss.

I think WW gets the same bad reputation Atkins does, in a different way. Weight watchers has 8 healthy guidelines that take up almost all of your points for the day...healthy fats, fruits, grains, dairy, lean proteins...people go on WW thinking "I can eat whatever I want if I stay within my points", and to a certain degree that's true, but it isn't following the program as it was meant to be followed (ie, adhering to the healthy guidelines)...just like people going on Atkins think they can eat whatever bacon and cream and butter they want, and never read the book to go deeper into the program and discover all of the OTHER foods that make up at Atkins eating plan.

:bravo: A truer statement has never been spoken!! This is why I can't stress enough to people..."If you want to do Atkins...READ THE BOOK!!!"

I do both, actually. I found with very low carb, the state of ketosis works to curb your hunger--which is great! But if I went by the "only eat when I'm hungry" rule on low carb, my calories ended up being SUPER low (800-1000 calories a day, anyone?). I now count both my carbs and my calories. It's interesting to me that on a diet where I'm so satisfied all the time that I have to count to make sure I have enough calories, as opposed to making sure I'm not eating too many. :)

I've done both calorie-counting and low carb independently of one another as well. Low carb works best for me personally--but I count my calories, too. I use Fit Day, log everything... It's not so bad once you're used to it ;) It all comes down to a personal choice, and what you can sustain. In my opinion, everyone can benefit from reducing their carbohydrate intake and upping their protein and good fats--no matter what diet plan they're following. To the degree that people moderate carbs is up to them--I like ketosis-level carb restriction, some people use Zone-levels and hit a more moderate 30%. It really depends on you. :)

EDIT: One thing I didn't say, and I meant to, is that there is no magic about whichever way you choose. No one diet is going to be the magic cure for obesity or health--it's still your hard work and determination that gets you to your goal eventually. Depending on your lifestyle and how your body reacts, one diet or another might make the journey easier or harder for you. But no diet is going to work over night, or in some mystical way.

I've read that insulin resistant folks and diabetics do better on carb-controlled or low-carb diets. There's some indication that fibromyalgia patients do better on the Zone.

It would be nice if there were more research to attempt to predict which diets work best for specific situations, so trial and error wouldn't be the only way for people to learn which WOE will work best (or at least develop ways to narrow the search so some people don't have to do years and years of trial and error before finding what works for them). There are theories out there (like the blood type diet) but so far, not a whole lot of research to back up the claims.

I have not ever had much luck with counting calories to reduce weight. Usually because I end up with such cravings that I binge eat or I start planning how I'm going to cheat. This also goes for the exercising to lose. Exercising has always made me very hungry and I blow my diet because I cannot stop eating. But this is not true with a low-carb approach.

Now, I am an Atkins purist. I only eat Induction Acceptable foods [all veggies & no fruits] but I eat 25-30 grams net carbs [carbs minus fiber only]. I still have 28 pounds to lose but being able to eat more veggies keeps me feeling satiated and gives me enough energy to strength train and endurance train on alternate days. I no longer experienced the after workout hunger-monster because my protein and fats are high enough to give my muscles the fuel it needs to recouperate. When I hit a plateau, like I have at the weight I was when I got pg with my daughter, I will track my foods in FitDay to make sure I am getting enough calories and carbs.

Kaplods, I have to agree with you! I'm insulin resistant and from my research low-carb food plans (I won't say "diet" as it has to become a way of life forever) work best for us folks! It's hard to let sink in after a life-time of loving carbs, eating carbs and carbs being so much a part of the foods you see in magazines, in restaurants and at get-togethers. BUT...if one decides (and it is a choice) that they NEED to be healthy---this has to be the way to go. After all...I've not heard of anyone "dying" not eating carbs...but apparently one will die if they eat too many of the wrong kind (due to heart disease, diabetes etc.).

I think that eliminating carbs is a bad idea, and my guess is that doing so would have adverse effects, possibly even death. Carbs, fats, proteins - they're all important, but how you get them and in what proportions, well I think that's still up for argument.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with long-term induction. I think vegetables and fruits are extremely important sources of nutrition and need to be included in generous quantities for a healthy diet - or way of eating (I'm still used to using the word diet in its traditional meaning of what a person eats, not necessarily why they are eating it). I also believe that while a low carb diet should not be a low fat one, I don't think it should be a saturated-fat gorge-fest either. "Everything in moderation, even moderation," seems to me no less applicable to low-carb than any other philosophy.

Still, everyone is going to have their own beliefs about how much is too little or too little for general health, and for their own health specifically (and whether they even give a fig about their health). I think there's room for discussion and disagreement on the subject, as we're united in some very basic principles. The main one being that excessive carbohydrates (whatever you mean by that) has been interfering with our ability to achieve weight loss.

Actually, carbohydrates are the only macronutrient that is not required for life. You can make all the carbs you need to live out of amino acids and fat. No one would recommend you do this but it has been proven. Carbs are our only source of fiber and a number of important vitamins and other phytonutrients so eating healthy carbs is part of a healthy diet.

Yes, but when thinking of a meat only diet for humans (as opposed to critters who can make their own vitamin C), scurvy immediately comes to mind. Humans can't synthesize their own vitamin C, so have to get it somewhere - generally plant sources. The traditional Eskimo diet is about as carnivorous as a human diet gets, though generally still contains some plant sources of vitamin C like blueberries (and many if not most modern Eskimo are not eating a purely traditional diets, and now would be eating even more plant foods). I've heard that whale skin and the organs of sea mammals are high in vitamin C (if eaten raw), and muscle meat little, which cooking mostly destroys.

Since most Americans eat very little if any raw meat (let alone raw skin and organ meat), I don't think eliminating plant foods would be safe for very long. If you want to eat only meat, you would have to eat it raw and the whole critter (probably including the bones).

Kaplods are you under the impression that low carb means no vegetables? Exactly where do you think a low carb dieter gets carbs? Is there a particular low carb diet of which you are thinking?

No, my response was only, and very specifically responding to petra65's comments (which where in response to mine, which were in response to frustratedieters) regarding whether completely eliminating carbohydrates (in theory) could be done, and what health effects might ensue. Just a philisophical point, not a practical one.

OH. Yeah, I probably should have read the entire thread. Well, anywho...

Just so you know, you can survive and very well on an all meat diet. A synopsis of an experiment at the Bellvue Hospital in 1928 is discussed in Living The Low Carb Life. The guinea pigs spent a year eating anything they wanted a long as it was meat with fat, in any ratio they wanted. They did not get scurvy or a kidney disease, suffer bone loss, or die. Their cholestrol improved and they lost weight.

I am not in any way saying we should do this. I absolutely love broccoli and spinach. Even my kids love broccoli and spinach and request salad for dinner. But I do think it is interesting, very interesting.

Yes, I've read of this, but it was not a true empirical experiment, as we would consider it today. Rather Vilhjalmur Stefansson and a colleague lived on a meat-only diet for one year under medical supervision at New York's Bellevue Hospital. However Stefansson and his colleague were not, in any sense, unbiased "guinea pigs." Rather, Stefansson had studied Eskimos in the arctic, and advocated the eskimo "meat-only" diet. Also, while they received "medical supervision" I do not believe that they lived at the hospital or that their diet was in any way controlled or monitored, so we only have their "word" that they never once during that year ate anything but meat and fat. It's very possible that they failed to report occasional lapses from the diet (perhaps even believing small rare lapses to be "insignificant"). Also, there's no mention of whether beverages such as coffee or teas were consumed and whether they would have been considered significant. If not, there are many teas which would provide vitamin C. It's also possible that these two people (not laymen, but scientists) knew to eat the skin, organ meat, and of the importance of not overcooking the meat (or were doing so because they were intentionally emulating the diet of Eskimos, which was Stefansson's goal - and the purpose of the study).

Also, scurvy is an extremely slow progressing disorder, taking many months to show symptoms (by most reports up to 8). In an uncontrolled study of only two individuals, where at least one is strongly biased having a theory to prove (and for all practical purposes conductiong the study), it's hard to draw any certain conclusions.

Anectodotally, Stefansson and others have reported living on an all meat diet for many years, but whether these people were eating much organ meat and skin or how well cooked they ate their meat, and whether they occasionally (even if rarely) ate plant foods, or drank tea... has not been well-reported to my knowledge.

I believe that nutritional deficiencies in general can have unforseen consequences that take years to develop. There's much evidence that phytonutrients may be the best protection against many if not most cancers. I think there's much evidence that a person can live on only meat and fat (though doubtfully only muscle tissue) for extended periods of time, but the question "how long," hasn't truly been explored (and probably never will be due to palatability, even the most diehard carnivore tends to enjoy at least some plant-based foods (a cup of tea, a piece of fruit, or a bit of vegetable...) at least occasionallly.

I think most clinical research allow the participants to come and go and depend on the accuracy and honesty of the participant. As doctors, I think the two guys who were part of the experiment would know this. All these years, when we read reports on those studies that lasted ten years, the people aren't captive in a research lab.

It would be interesting to find out if they were drinking tea. I will definitely try to find the research paper.

Neither participant were medically trained I believe (Stefansson was an anthropologist). Research methods are much more vigorously controlled today than they were 80 years ago. Most importantly, by modern standards, a study would be considered deeply flawed if any of the participants had a stake in the outcome (even knowing the purpose of a study by subject or researcher is known to skew results). Not to mention, even if the study were perfectly controlled by modern standards, very few conclusions can be drawn from a study of only two individuals (particularly as they were both male, and probably of similar age). All we truly can say is the Stefansson and his colleage suffered no apparent harm from eating primarily or perhaps even exclusively only meat for one year. That's far from saying that most, many, or even any human can live for years or a lifetime on a meat-only (particularly a fat and muscle-tissue only) diet. There just isn't much research to prove that. It's a theoretical possibility, but I think ultimately impractical as you're unlikely to find anyone naturally eating this way, or anyone willing to participate in rigorous research.

Yeah, that's true about the studies then and now. Today, we ridicule reasearch that doesn't use a double blind study. I also know what you mean about the study being performed on males. Like women don't need research, too. And they didn't stay at the hospital for the entire year. But they had to come in for body fluid analysis and other tests.

I think they would get a lot of participants if they did this study again. I would probably sign up on principle alone.

And thanks for the information about organ meats. I am going to do mor research on this. You know, usually when I buy whole chickens, they don't even include the organ meats. When I was a kid, the gizzard was the best part. I don't like liver though, so I'm not missing that part. Bleh. Just the thought of liver make me want to barf.

Is brain considered an organ meat?

I bet the research couldn't be done today, as it would probably be considered unethical (because of possible negative consequences - even though there's no proof that there would be any, there's a good chance and that might be enough to keep anyone from doing the research). That is,
unless they were able to study a group of people already eating only meat (say an extreme no-carb diet became popular).

Even so, if they could do the research, I wonder how many people could stick with it for a year let alone longer. I bet a lot would drop out fairly quickly. I know I certainly would. I like meat, but I'm a variety addict, and love condiments (most of which contain at least minimal carbs, except salt and maybe fish sauce), and couldn't live without salad for a year.

Actually, I can't go "too" low carb because I'm on metformin (which lowers blood sugar). Although even when I first tried Atkins as a teenager, induction made me very lightheaded and ill. I also remember trying an even more extreme low-carb fad diet (pretty much meat, fish, chicken, eggs, and water) - with extremely unpleasant results.

Brains are an organ meat - though I've never tried them. I love well-prepared liver, and gizzards - yum. My dad used to make a great chicken gizzard dish. I think he simmered them in wine and onions. Then there was a restaurant in LaSalle, IL that made an amazing fried chicken gizzard appetizer. I don't know how they got fried gizzards that tender, must have simmered them first. They served them with an amazing barbecue sauce (not particularly low carb considering the tempura style batter and the barbecue sauce, but so good!)

I still get lightheaded if I don't eat enough in a day. At one point last year, I used to keep almonds around for times when I was stuck at work without food. But nuts are such a hand-to-mouth just can't eat one serving, that I had to stop buying them.

It is just so amusing to me that when I counted calories to lose weight, I would eat too much. And now that I don't care how many calories I get, I have to make sure I get enough. Go figure.

I agree with you Kaplod...I think it's "common sense" that a healthy well-balanced diet equipped with protein, essential fats, complex carbs (veggies), fruits, grains & legumes IN MODERATION is how humans were meant to survive. I, for one, used Atkins as a way to get my "carb addiction" under control. Induction works great to do that...but even Dr. Atkins recommends several phases of the diet (which include all of the above) and I think alot of people forget that. They just stay on induction (cuz everybody's lookin' for the quick fix/weight loss). I believe that most people who stay on induction fall into the yo-yo dieting arena. It is not possible to exists on induction for extended periods of time (which Dr. Atkins himself warns against in his book). I believe that Dr. Atkins methodology was to help folk gain control over their eating habits in the end...eating sensibly, well-balanced. YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT...simply put. Obviously the more naturally healthy foods you put in your body the healthier you'll be. In other words...although, an orange and spinach both have Vitamin C...I do not believe it wise to eliminate the orange (saying..well, they both have Vitamin C...so I don't need the orange) cuz the orange has other valuable nutrients that the spinach doesn't and visa versa...they are both imperative to health/well-being.

In summary put a well-balanced diet equipped with all four food groups and regular exercise (i.e., aerobic/anaerobic) = heathly, lean and fit YOU! Just my two cents...and opinion. BTW, I'm not sure it's wise to gauge our eating habits with test studies done on guinny pigs and cavemen!...for goodness sakes'...sometimes science just goes too far! :lol:

Has anyone read this very popular E-book, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle...I've heard it very good, but haven't read it yet? Joyce

Usually, I think it's not science's problem, but the rest of us. I'm sure many of the researchers just shake their head when they see how their research is being misinterpreted and misused by the general public. One study (even if done on people) would never be used by a scientist as "proof" of anything. Rather it's only with multiple studies with similar results, that a scientist have confidence in their results, and what the results might mean in terms of causation or usefulness in prediction. The reports in the media, though are not written by the scientists, they're written by laymen and journalists and suddenly you get a headline in a woman's magazine like "bras give you breast cancer." (Because one study found that women who wear bras are much more likely to get breast cancer - yeah, but do you think it could be that women who DON'T wear bras tend to have very small breasts, and perhaps less breast tissue might logically mean a lower risk of breast cancer).

:lol: I love your posts!

I always look forward to what you have to say; Its always very thought provoking and I often find myself nodding my head and saying: Mmmmmmmmmmmhmm!" to myself when reading them. ;)

Why that's so sweet. I chalk it up to the nickname friends first gave me in college "trivia queen." If the information has virtually no practical application, it stays in my head permanently. However, if it's something important (like where I parked my car, left my purse, or (while at the grocery store - assuming I have my purse) what was on that grocery list that I left on the table at home.... well that's another story.

Kaplods, you are funny. That is so true that the results can be used for the benefit of any one. Also, we have a degredation in the research community because the money for research just for the sake of research is drying up. Now, instead of doing a study on optimal sodium levels because we need to know how much sodium is good, we have the Campbell's Soup company sponsoring the study. Now, would you be suspicious of results that were paid for and benefit the payor? Good discussion Kaplods. Thanks for the thought food.

Personally and in harmony with the thread's question, I've never calorie counted, but I'm currently doing my own version of Atkins...works for me! Like several people here have said...both will work, but what will work best for YOU only you can answer. It's like the old question, "which is heavier, a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers"? All diets work if you stick with them...hope this answers your question.

This science mumbo jumbo is rattling my head! I think if we spent as much time at the gym as we do burried in reading about "what we should do" we'd all be skinny! Good luck with whatever you choose. Joyce

I do both...I have low carb cook books...that I use to plan my meals, but I count my calories for the day!!! Sometimes I find the low carb recipes can have more eggs or red meat in them...so I just adjust to what I feel is appropriate for me...im not a big meat eater anyway...so just do what feels right and works for you....i think all plans have similiarities that we can use....like moderation, healthiful choices, and balance... :)

I don't know about anyone else, but I lose more weight LCing than counting calories.

I always knew I lost more while low-carbing, but assumed it was because I ate fewer calories (because that's what I've always read). But by counting calories (but not limiting them) while low carbing, I was actually able to prove to myself that I can actually eat more calories and still lose more weight on low carb than on a "food pyramid" diet.

However, it is possible for me to overeat on low carb resulting in maintaining my weight or losing very little - if I eat too much fat, or in general eat a lot more than I really need. Calorie counting is a nice "back-up" system for me. I don't think most people have to do both, but I've spent so many years yoyo dieting that I'm insulin resistant, my metabolism is shot, and have almost no "hunger control" system (if I ever had one - I pretty much started gaining weight as soon as I had any personal control over my eating - at about 5years old). For me, once I start eating, even a hurting stomache often doesn't feel like "satisfied," to me. So I do have to set portion limits.

On low carb, I am definitely less ravenously hungry, and less obsessed with food. But that really means more in terms of fewer triggers to start eating, rather than more or stronger triggers to stop. I can even now "forget" to eat (I'll tell you that's a new experience), but once I start eating, I still tend to eat until the food is gone, rather than by any internal signal that I've had enough. So having the "safety net" of calorie counting gives me external feedback (since my internal feedback seems broken).

This week was a perfect example. I ate quite low carb, but didn't count calories, and ate more fat, and I didn't lose an ounce (didn't gain either, so that's great), but I really think for me, I need to count both (maybe only until I get a handle on things, maybe forever). That being said, I personally believe that success often means simplifying, and not making things more complicated for yourself than necessary. But by necessary, I mean what works. So ultimately, trial and error usually ends up a component in this whole business somewhere.

I also love reading what you have to say. You sound somewhat like me. My husband is always amazed that I can remember all the campers names and what sites they are on(we own a campground), but I also leave the grocery list at home or forget where I parked the car.(that is why I like having a big red truck)

Have you tried any particular plan that seemed to work well for you in the past?

I have done Atkins and done very well on it. It also provides a certain amount of freedom because I don't have to weigh every ounce of meat, etc.

I recently tried LFL. While it had more choices, it just didn't work as well for me so I've gone back to Atkins yesterday. Not only did I lose the pound I was up, but an additional pound as well.

I know Atkins works for me so there is no sense in fooling around with other plans.

If you have tried other plans, maybe you could go back to one that worked for you and your lifestyle. Some folks would rather have a wider variety of foods and a slower loss, while others just can't tolerate very many carbs before it stalls them - I'm one of those folks, so Atkins it is for me. I get bored with it but it does work.