I'm not sure why people feel any type of carb is bad for regular weight loss. There is no significant evidence that refined or unrefined carbs are bad for your weight loss (assuming you are not diabetic). Carbs can be bad because carb-rich foods tend to be surprisingly high in calories, but that's about it from a weight loss perspective.
Also, 1,200kcal/day diets are brutal. Caloric restriction diets have overwhelming scientific evidence of being an ineffective strategy in the long term. Even if you have some elaborate food system with rest days, it doesn't matter. They fail for the overwhelming majority of people. They lose weight, fail to maintain the difficult diet, then pop back up.
Your body doesn't defy thermodynamics, but your metabolism is a clever thing. The best way to achieve permanent, long term body-fat loss is to reduce your diet to something reasonable and exercise (both aerobic and weight) regularly. I know hackers desperately want the clever solution, but as it stands there is no evidence-based way to get results that is as reliable as the "eat-less-workout-more" approach.
I don't believe the evidence is on your side. The reason carbs damage us more than merely their caloric content is, to quote Dr. William Davis of The Heart Scan Blog:
"Carbohydrates increase small LDL particles.
Or, in the cholesterol-speak most people understand, "carbohydrates increase cholesterol." It's counterintuitive, but carbohydrates increase LDL substantially, far more than any fat.
Carbohydrates increase blood sugar.
Eggs don't increase blood sugar, nor do chicken, raw almonds, onions or green peppers. But a bowl of oatmeal will send your blood sugar skywards.
Carbohydrates make you fat.
Carbohydrates, whether in the form of wheat flour in your whole wheat bread, sucrose in your ice cream, fructose in your "organic Agave nectar," or high-fructose corn syrup in your dill pickles. They all provoke de novo lipogenesis, or fat formation. They also stimulate insulin, the hormone of fat storage.
Carbohydrates cause glycation.
High blood sugar, like the kind that develops after a bowl of oatmeal, triggers glycation, or modification of proteins by glucose (blood sugar). This is how cataracts, kidney disease, and atherosclerotic plaque develop. Small LDL is 8-fold more glycation prone than large LDL, providing a carbohydrate double-whammy."
I also recommend Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes, which is a well documented indictment of our common wisdom regarding nutrition (ie, things like the preposterous food pyramid). The general point is that not all calories are alike.
My own merely personal anecdote: after eliminating all wheat and almost all other carbs from my diet, I lost ~35 points effortlessly. All this while not doing much exercise at all (recent evidence suggests that your body simply adapts to exercise by getting hungrier). I was much hungrier and unhappier on a low fat diet.
Interesting. I can find a lot of studies on pubmed with dietary restriction comparisons. While I am not a doctor, I'm familiar enough with scientific and academic literature to read papers and work through them. I think you probably can to, so here are a lot of links:
Ad lib, low fat, high carbohydrate diet was superior to fixed energy intake
for maintaining weight after a major weight loss. The rate of the initial
weight loss did not influence long term outcome.
It's important to understand that linking to a book or a single doctor's blog is not going to be good evidence. These studies are what good evidence is, because they are evidence instead of hearsay and anecdotes. And please note the dates on these studies, they are not old.
"A low-carbohydrate diet, which consisted of limited carbohydrate intake (20 g/d for 3 months) in the form of low-glycemic index vegetables with unrestricted consumption of fat and protein." (emphasis mine)
"During the first 6 months, the low-carbohydrate diet group had greater reductions in diastolic blood pressure, triglyceride levels, and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lesser reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and more adverse symptoms than did the low-fat diet group. The low-carbohydrate diet group had greater increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at all time points, approximating a 23% increase at 2 years."
That's a pretty big difference if you ask me. The low-carb group was not calorie-restricted. The low-carb group had more positive changes in the most important heart disease indicators (VLDL and HDL). Notably, the HDL increase is very important.
I meant within the context of weight loss and long term results. I did not mean to imply there are no differences, and I welcome a clarification there.
And even if I did read a few of them wrong, I'm fine with that. I want people to talk in terms of evidence and fact, not "this very smart doctor's blog" or "this book hawking yet another clever secret diet". That's of far more value to the news.ycomb community, and if it costs me a few bruises to my ego, so be it. These studies are accessible and readable, let's use them.
Good Calories, Bad Calories has a pretty robust bibliography, and the author, Gary Taubes, is a well respected science reporter. It would be a mistake to characterize his book in the way you have. Check it out from the library and read some of it yourself. :)
I tried to read most of Good Calories, Bad Calories, but in the end felt no smarter than before. Yes, he dug up a lot of documents, but I can not verify them myself. Most diet "philosophies" can cite any number of research articles (as Taube himself explains in every chapter - it's just that almost all studies seem to have flaws). It actually made me distrust the book a little bit that it was so badly organized. That is, rather than arguing a point well, it just dumps an insurmountable heap of information on the reader.
As has been mentioned by other posters, this study demonstrated that carbohydrate restriction was as effective as extreme calorie restriction (as low as 1200kcal/d!) in causing weight loss. Carbohydrate restriction was better at improving just about every indicator of cardiovascular health that exists--triglyceride levels, HDL levels, blood pressure, etc.
The abstract for this study supports the assertion that carbohydrate restriction is an effective and healthy weight loss technique. It does support the assertion that starving yourself can also promote weight loss; I do not believe anyone here has disagreed with this hypothesis, however. (I would argue that few people will willingly remain on a 1200 kcal/day diet for the rest of their life, however.)
This study is dealing with low glycemic index diets, not low-carb diets. It is largely irrelevant to the discussion. (Note that frucose, a carbohydrate, has a very low glycemic index.)
This study deals with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), not carbohydrate-restricted diets in general. I note also that the "high fat" diet in this study only included 35-45% of calories from fat, and about 45% of calories from carbohydrates. In other words, this study does not appear to contain any low-carbohydrate diets, and is again irrelevant to the discussion.
Leaving aside the rather scary warnings about liver damage, it appears that orlistat is used in conjunction with "an individualized low-calorie, low-fat diet".
This paper does not appear to have any relevance to a discussion of carbohydrate-restricted diets. (Except, perhaps, as an argument for the scary side effects of the alternatives.)
The "final nail" in the coffin of carbohydrate restriction, as you put it, appears to be a study comparing a fat-restricted/calorie-unrestricted diet with a calorie-restricted diet. Carbohydrate-restricted diets do not make an appearance.
End result: Four irrelevant studies, one which supports carbohydrate restriction as a superior alternative to calorie restriction for weight loss and cardiovascular health.
Paper #4 was a mistake and slipped in by accident. Sorry about that.
I think you're misreading and/or selectively quoting on most offer others, though.
Please remember, the argument is not "carb cutting has no beneficial effects". The argument is, "carb cutting has no long-term effects on weight loss."
"The abstract for this study supports the assertion that carbohydrate restriction is an effective and healthy weight loss technique. It does support the assertion that starving yourself can also promote weight loss; I do not believe anyone here has disagreed with this hypothesis, however. (I would argue that few people will willingly remain on a 1200 kcal/day diet for the rest of their life, however.)"
The abstract of the paper made it clear that attrition was high in both groups -- neither cohort could maintain their diets. Also, you're doing a fair amount of selective quoting. From the abstract, right before the part you quoted:
"There were no differences in weight, body composition, or bone mineral density between the groups at any time point."
In other words: neither group lost more weight than the other, at any time point. Which was the OP's point. Also, the following papers were trivial to find:
"Participants on a low-carbohydrate diet had more favorable overall outcomes at 1 year than did those on a conventional diet. Weight loss was similar between groups, but effects on atherogenic dyslipidemia and glycemic control were still more favorable with a low-carbohydrate diet after adjustment for differences in weight loss."
"After 6 months, individuals assigned to low-carbohydrate diets had lost more weight than individuals randomized to low-fat diets....This difference was no longer obvious after 12 months....Triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values changed more favorably in individuals assigned to low-carbohydrate diets....but total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values changed more favorably in individuals assigned to low-fat diets"
"There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets, particularly among participants older than age 50 years, for use longer than 90 days, or for diets of 20 g/d or less of carbohydrates. Among the published studies, participant weight loss while using low-carbohydrate diets was principally associated with decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with reduced carbohydrate content."
"Variability in dietary weight loss trials may be partially attributable to differences in hormonal response. Reducing glycemic load may be especially important to achieve weight loss among individuals with high insulin secretion. Regardless of insulin secretion, a low-glycemic load diet has beneficial effects on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations but not on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration."
Confused? You should be. What a quick perusal of the evidence tells me is that a) despite what you may have read on the internet, the question is far from settled, and b) if there is any conclusion to be made, it's that low-carb diets may have some positive benefit on cholesterol and triglyceride levels, but don't seem to have any net benefit when it comes to weight control.
if there is any conclusion to be made, it's that low-carb diets may have some positive benefit on cholesterol and triglyceride levels, but don't seem to have any net benefit when it comes to weight control.
This observation is hugely important because one of the biggest myths about low-carb diets is that eating all that fat will be bad for your heart when in reality study after study shows that such diets outperform low-fat calorie-resricted diets on the most important lipid indicators - HDL, VLDL, and triglycerides.
The scare-tactic logic runs something along the lines of "Sure, you might lose weight but think about what you'll be doing to your heart."
When hard numbers show that eating unrestricted amounts of fat and protein lead to similar weight loss as a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet, the lipid results are swept under the rug.
This matches my personal experience. I had similar weight loss result on both types of diets, but my blood panels were dramatically better on a low-carb diet. I'd also add that I never felt hungry on a low-carb diet, while I was constantly hungry on the low-fat, calorie-restricted diet.
I find the main difficulty with low-carb diets is that they are boring. Our society does not cater to them. Ordering at restaurants and eating lunch with your workgroup when meals are brought in ase challenging. There's also a lot of social pressure around dessert (parties) and alcohol.
Unfortunately - at least for me - cheating on a low-carb diet is a major setback because it can set up a cycle of hunger that take at least a few days to get out of. Low-fat diets aren't the same, mostly because you are often convincing yourself to be hungry all the time anyway.
but my blood panels were dramatically better on a low-carb diet
My blood panels were exactly the opposite - bad when I ate cheese, meat, fried, oily stuff... good when I switched to a diet consisting mostly of rice, noodles, fruits and vegetables.
In other words: neither group lost more weight than the other, at any time point.
That's not the point, however--again, nobody argues that you can't cause people to lose weight by severely restricting their caloric intake. As study after study has shown, however, caloric restriction diets do not work in the long term. People just can't maintain semi-starvation diets indefinitely.
Furthermore, quoting the abstract: "After 3 months, participants in the low-carbohydrate diet group increased their carbohydrate intake (5 g/d per wk) until a stable and desired weight was achieved."
In other words, it is entirely expected that both groups had similar levels of weight loss, since the researchers explicitly took steps to ensure that this would be the case. The same presumably goes for the calorie-restricted group, since their calorie levels are given as 1200-1800 kcal/day--quite a wide range, indicating that the researchers adjusted caloric intake to achieve the desired levels of weight loss.
I would be interested to know what the relative attrition was between the two groups; the abstract does not include this information, and I don't feel like paying $15 for the full paper.
Your four new cites do not change the fact that of the OP's five cites, one argued against his position and four were irrelevant. Addressing yours, however...
Compares carbohydrate-restricted, calorie-unrestricted diet with fat-restricted, calorie-restricted diet. Finds that you lose as much weight eating as much as you want on a carbohydrate-restricted diet as you do starving yourself on a fat-restricted diet.
States that total cholesterol changed more favorably on a low-fat diet, which is strange, since total cholesterol is a lousy measure of anything. High HDL ("good cholesterol") levels are good, while high triglyceride levels are bad--what value can there possibly be in adding the two together?
States that LDL levels were "more favorable" in the low-fat contingent, but LDL is not a monolithic substance. Small, dense LDL is bad; large, less dense LDL is either good or not bad depending on who you talk to. High-fat diets are known to raise large LDL levels, so an increase in overall LDL in the carbohydrate-restricted group is entirely expected.
Meta-analysis. States that in published studies involving diets restricting carbohydrate intake to less than 90 g/day (~360 calories/day), there was no correlation between amount of carbohydrate intake and weight loss. In other words, their analysis indicates that once carbohydrate intake has been restricted to a certain level, further restriction may have no impact on weight loss.
They did not compare carbohydrate restricted diets with any other form of diet, and therefore cannot draw any conclusions regarding the relative effectiveness of carbohydrate restriction and any other diet.
Their analysis also reveals the lack of published research performed on carbohydrate-restricted diets over the past few decades. This fact is also unsurprising to anyone who has read GCBC.
The abstract does not indicate to what degree, if any, caloric restriction was used.
Compares a "low glycemic load" diet with a low fat diet; does not examine carbohydrate restriction. Note that the low glycemic load contingent was still receiving 40% of calories from carbohydrates.
This study also appears to have examined LDL without regard to LDL composition (small/dense vs. large/less-dense).
Confused?
No, not really.
My understanding is that a carbohydrate-restricted diet:
- Will promote weight loss without hunger.
- Will increase HDL levels (good cholesterol).
- Will decrease triglyceride levels (very, very bad stuff).
- Will increase LDL levels. LDL is "bad cholesterol", BUT...
- ...small LDL is correlated with CHD, and is not increased by a carbohydrate-restricted diet, AND...
- ...LDL in general is much less important than HDL and triglyceride levels as a risk factor for CHD.
Both your citations and those of the OP have either been irrelevant to these points or have supported them.
Actually, I agree the last study looks ok. The problem is it's about a completely separate discussion.
It's about MUFA, which nobody is talking about. Fully saturated fat is the recommendation.
I don't think there's actually much debate the old recommendation to guzzle olive oil was garbage. The problem is people are still advising against butter and bacon, which is wrong.
An issue with the study is they're claiming a diet that's over half carbohydrates is "high fat". No, over 60% fat would be high fat.
> The problem is it's about a completely separate discussion.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case. While there may be additional effects, the general results strongly suggest that barring pre-existing health conditions, it seems very likely that a modestly restricted diet and regular exercise is the best way to lose weight known to modern science.
And keep in mind: specialty diets don't work. So even if we do discover some clever metabolic hacking that lets people lose weight fast, it's not of much value to the discourse at hand about public health. People can't maintain diets.
What does the fifth study cited (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670466 -- note that the link provided in the original post is wrong) have to do with carbohydrate-restricted diets? Carbohydrate restriction makes no appearance in the study.
You don't think there's a difference between downing a cup or two of olive oil a day vs a stick of butter? That's a huge difference. They're chemically very different things.
You don't think eating two sticks of butter a day vs one stick of butter plus half a loaf of bread is different?
> People can't maintain diets
People can easily maintain high saturated fat diets. They can't maintain calorie restricted diets.
You'll get zero debate from me there's not really a quick hack and a key component of the obesity epidemic, perhaps the single biggest issue, is that people are lazy and gluttonous. But the fact remains the obesity epidemic exploded immediately after saturated fat as a percentage of calories came way down. Fructose is the other factor; it went way up.
I'm not sure these studies support your case. I didn't bother to read all of them, but for example, according to the first one:
During the first 6 months, the low-carbohydrate diet group had greater reductions in diastolic blood pressure, triglyceride levels, and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lesser reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and more adverse symptoms than did the low-fat diet group. The low-carbohydrate diet group had greater increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at all time points, approximating a 23% increase at 2 years. Limitation: Intensive behavioral treatment was provided, patients with dyslipidemia and diabetes were excluded, and attrition at 2 years was high. Conclusion: Successful weight loss can be achieved with either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet when coupled with behavioral treatment. A low-carbohydrate diet is associated with favorable changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors at 2 years.
Not sure what they mean by "adverse symptoms," but generally I read that as: low carb is better for your heart.
By all means, don't trust my personal anecdote or what Dr. Davis has to say on the matter (though I do recommend reading through his blog, as he does stay abreast of the literature and often refers to new studies, and he does have tons of empirical evidence via his patients.) Trust really isn't required, when it's easy enough to run your own experiments: simply eliminate wheat/grains/potatoes/juice/etc... for a few months and see what happens. (If you do this, do a lipid profile before and after.) If, like me, your LDL cholesterol drops dramatically and you lose 20-30 pounds, then that's the evidence that really matters.
From quickly scanning through those studies I don't think any one of them actually looked at a high fat, low carbohydrate diet. The so-called high fat diet was ~40% calories from fat, and they never defined what kind of fat (soybean oil, known to exacerbate obesity?). That necessarily means it was mostly a carbohydrate diet. Another of the so-called low carb diets is about "low glycemic index vegetables" with a weekly increase in carb serving. One of the studies is about MUFA. Nobody is advocating a high MUFA diet. The key is saturated fat.
These links don't add much to the discussion. GCBC rigorously breaks down the entire body of research. It was the product of years of careful review. I suggest you read it.
> (recent evidence suggests that your body simply adapts to exercise by getting hungrier)
Interesting. I have experienced the opposite. Exercising reduces my appetite and I have to consciously eat more to avoid losing weight. Do you have references?
I read the abstract. How does that imply we shouldn't exercise? It just says that obese people are impaired in their ability to burn fat, which is part of a negative feedback in their lifestyle.
If the argument was that exercise alone is sufficient with a totally unrestricted calorie intake, that'd be a good rebuttal. But I don't think anyone has claimed that so far.
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't exercise, merely that it probably takes more than exercise alone to lose weight. There are many other great reasons to exercise.
I wonder if it's not more about willpower than appetite. Once you've used your willpower to get yourself to workout, maybe you don't have any left to resist bad food. Unless you're one of those lucky people who actually likes working out.
Look at Interval Training / HIIT / Fartleks -- you shouldn't be doing hours of cardio in a gym for weight loss. And look at doing Resistance training before you do those.. (Basically -- Alwyn Cosgrove's hierarchy is probably the best guide: http://alwyncosgrove.com/2010/01/hierarchy-of-fat-loss/ )
Long hours of cardio are what you do when you a) Really enjoy it and b) Have time. If it's a nice day - go for a bike ride or a run... but if you're stuck inside in the gym - optimise your time.
Try cardio outside. Pick a route of the length you want to run and run it. Running in a gym constantly requires willpower to go on, especially when you're getting tired. Running outside only requires to start, but when you're getting tired you are away from your house so you don't really have a choice. Also: fresh air, better temperatures, quiet and better scenery.
I run several times a week and it requires almost no willpower, whereas I would definitely not have the willpower to run for an hour on a treadmill even once.
Depends if you go along to the gym with people you know or just by yourself. Having a chat seems to pass the time well enough for me at the gym. That said I've been getting back into bike riding outdoors recently which can be a lot more fun.
Hey, I'm genuinely interested, not just trolling. I realize that the OP is talking about being OVERweight but you sound like you understand a thing or two about the diet, that's why I ask.
Isn't the cholesterol hysteria a thing of the past? Not saying you are wrong, but who is this William Davies? His blog looks well designed, but that does not automatically make true what he says. A lot of diet products come with great marketing.
Calories make you fat. The problem with carbs is that they are generally very caloric dense and they are everywhere. Cutting carbs is an easy 'diet for dummies' way of doing it, but I'm going to guess that you put yourself in a caloric deficit by cutting out the carbs, thus experienced weight loss. Just for reference, I eat a ton of carbs are part of my total P/F/C intake and am still cutting down with a goal of 9% BF.
The problem with many of these types of books is that the science behind them is very weak. Here is an article where Alan Aragon looks at the problems with the glycemic index (I know you didn't mention it, but it shows the problems with many studies dealing with food).
Insulin + calories make you fat, not just calories. That's why one of the early symptoms of Type I diabetes is uncontrolled weight loss despite increased hunger.
Insulin has a very important role in weight control but is often ignored in favor of the calories in - calories out argument, an argument that ignores important factors in weight control (most notably the influence of diet on satiety and metabolic rate).
It's not nearly that simple. 2000 calories once a day in one sitting is vastly different than 2000 calories spread evenly over 5 or 6 meals throughout the day.
Calories don't make you fat, insulin spikes make you fat, which are caused by too many calories too fast causing your blood sugar to spike.
It seems that the research points that body comp levels are either unchanged or lead to more fat with the more meals/per day. The benefit of spreading out calories has to do with satiety and hunger not the gaining of fat. From the well researched article summary:
§ A haphazard/randomly variable meal frequency, not necessarily a lower frequency, negatively impacts thermogenesis, blood lipids, and insulin sensitivity.
§ Within a day, a higher frequency has no thermodynamic advantage over a lower frequency under controlled conditions.
§ The majority of controlled intervention trials show no improvement in body composition with a higher meal frequency.
The glycemic index of the carb also affects hunger to a large degree because of the resulting spike in blood sugar. Yes, if you are only going to eat X amount of calories they are pretty much all the same. One of the biggest carbs to cut is fructose as it interferes with the "im full" feeling.
But if you are a sane human being that eats when they are hungry then cutting carbs especially high glycemic index carbs (fructose) can put your body in a state where weight loss will occur naturally because of reduced appetite.
Sigh. So much misinformation in this thread. The main person who champions that fructose interferes with satiety is a guy named Lustig. Here some real research is placed up against Lustig's claims:
"Hold on a second…Lustig is forgetting that most fructose in both the commercial and natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it. You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without the accompanying glucose. Sucrose is half fructose and half glucose. High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is nearly identical to sucrose in structure and function. Here’s the point I’m getting at: contrary to Lustig’s contentions, both of these compounds have substantial research showing not just their ability to elicit an insulin response, but also their suppressive effect on appetite [3-6].
But wait, there’s more. In studies directly comparing the effect of fructose and glucose preloads on subsequent food intake, one showed no difference [7], while the majority have shown the fructose preload resulting in lesser food intake than the glucose preload [8-10]. A recent review of the literature on fructose’s effect on satiety found no compelling case for the idea that fructose is less satiating than glucose, or that HFCS is less satiating than sucrose [11]. So much for Lustig’s repeated assertion that fructose and fructose-containing sugars increase subsequent food intake. I suppose it’s easier to sensationalize claims based on rodent data."
> Lustig is forgetting that most fructose in both the commercial and
> natural domain has an equal amount of glucose attached to it.
> You’d have to go out of your way to obtain fructose without
> the accompanying glucose.
According to Wikipedia, the most common HFCS mixture is a 55-45 fructose-glucose mix. How else would HFCS be sweeter tasting than sucrose?
55-45 is pretty close to equal. His comment still stands that get it would be hard to find straight fructose. In addition, I'm not sure how 55-45 invalidates any of his argument, mainly that glucose is always around with the fructose.
There's a lot of glycemic index nonsense out there today. There is a low carb meme which will have you believe that just a few ounces of "carbs" will throw your metabolism out of whack and you won't lose weight even if you keep calories low. This is bullshit.
However, if you are trying to lose weight, it's often good to leave out carbs simply because it is so easy to overeat carbs. I love pasta and could easily eat 1200 calories worth of spaghetti and still have room for more. On the other hand , I almost have to choke down 1200 calories of eggs, fruit and vegetables.
I disagree - glycemic index is a hugely important factor that a lot of people just don't consider. I certainly didn't until recently and now I'm a convert.
Why GI is a big deal is simple: if you eat a lot of high GI foods your spike your blood sugar levels causing all sorts of issues from mood swings to hunger.
For me simply paying a little more attention and eating more low GI foods has had a profound effect on my well being. I find I'm more focused and centered mentally and emotionally; I never have mood swings from 'bottoming out' - aka running out of fuel and needing to eat. This use to cause me a lot of stress with my gf and my ex (they have told me in the past they worried about when I would be hungry next because I'd become irrational and argumentative).
I think it's easy to think something like the glycemic index is just a new 'fad' diet type of thing. I know I use to think only people with diabetes had to worry about GI. But what I've found is that it is a hugely beneficial thing no matter who you are.
Final thought on this - if you really don't think there is anything to the whole GI thing, next time you are hungry eat 8-10 almonds (maybe mix in some raisons or cranberries - they are high GI but together the overall 'load' is low) and see how quickly your hunger vanishes and your mood levels off. This isn't for 10 minutes either; I then have enough time to really think about lunch/dinner and make a really good choice instead of eating whatever is laying around because I'm 'starving'.
Anyway, I lost around 35 pounds in the past 2 month using this 'trick', but I also workout 5 days and get out and hike, play hockey and generally try to be active when I'm not coding.
> "it's often good to leave out carbs simply because it is so easy to overeat carbs"
Great truth. I find that carbs go through my system like a water slide - I get hungry fast, and that in turn leads to overeating.
A chunk of meat, while not being exactly low on calories (I pick lean cuts) and has a lot more fat than bread, lasts me a lot longer, and reduces cravings by an incredible amount.
For me that's the main benefit - I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not carbs are good for you, all I know is that on carb-heavy diets I eat more.
What it really should say is avoid 80% of the crappy cheap carbs you get from super refined/processed foods and sugars.
Just try eating 1000 calories of these categories:
-breads
-meat
-veggies
-fruits
Which one is by far the easiest to intake? Breads. An average person eats way too many calories by carbs. So it is undeniably true that cutting down carbs will cut down your calorie intake, and cut down your weight.
Not many other cultures eat flour and sugar in such quantities.
any calorie deficit of more than 500 cals a day doesn't really help as you'd be putting those pounds again after you return to your regular diet.
A healthy deficit of 500 cals and working out 3-5 times a week should be the best approach as far as the long run goes as it's just not about losing weight but maintaining it as well in a healthy manner.
Not only that, but you also need to stay at healthy eating habits past the diet. If you're cutting so many calories it's makes it near impossible to keep at it, much less adjust back up to a maintenance level once weight goals are hit.
Right. People seem to forget that if you modestly restrict your diet daily and work out 3-5 times a week, you're actually shaving quite a lot of calories off your weight in a weekly or monthly timespan.
Halving normal intake daily may look good on a daily ledger, but it's really hard on your body.
I didn't get the idea that he was saying that 1200kcal was an everyday thing; if it was, then I totally agree. I can picture having 1200kcal days here and there when he's not really active though, like his aforementioned 12-15 hour hacking days. The main point being: listen to your body. I you feel like you really need to eat something, then eat something. If you don't, then don't.
I can't even picture voluntary 1200kcal days, period. You're going to feel like hell if you're an average male denizen of Hacker News. Even a lot of women would feel bad on that caloric restriction.
Fasting a day or a few days every now and then is quite bearable for normal people. Lots of religious people do it.
(I am not saying that it is a good idea, or that it has health benefits. It may have some or it may not. But it is definitely bearable for some days with the right mindset.)
i think its more an issue with the fact that our older food pyramid has trained people to eat lots of carbs, and carbs are a staple in many american meals. over the course of the day, you can eat a lot of carbs if you're not paying attention. the point of counting carbs is to make sure you're not eating 10+ servings in a day from your bagel breakfast, sub sandwich lunch and pasta dinner.
> There is no significant evidence that refined or unrefined carbs are bad for your weight loss
There's a ton of evidence, actually. See GCBC.
> there is no evidence-based way to get results
High fat diets work. The clinical trials are pretty clear. Eat more saturated fat and less starch, and people get thin.
Also, this "refined carbohydrate" and "glycemic index" business is pretty much nonsense. Carbs are carbs. It doesn't much matter if the source is sugar or rye bread. The total resulting insulin exposure is the same.
Please link citations to real studies instead of a book. If GCBC is a quality, well-sourced work, I'm sure this should be trivial.
Saying, "read this book" is not helpful in this discussion. You don't even offer references from the book, you're telling us to read the whole thing just to even address your claims.
In another of your comments, you claim to be a fan of GCBC. I find it difficult to believe you are a "fan" of GCBC when you are apparently unaware of the tens of pages of citations it has in the back of it. I am not making up that number. And yes, it cites the studies that are not in its "favor" and discusses them too.
Your comment is basically "You're being too informative. Could you break it down for me further, again, one more time?" Seriously, no. People have already summarized it endlessly, ask Google about it, or even just poke around this thread a bit. If you want the full effect, go buy it and read it. (That's targeted at everybody reading this, not just you personally KirinDave.)
"Your comment is basically "You're being too informative. Could you break it down for me further, again, one more time?""
I have no stakes or position in the argument, but this line of reasoning can basically be applied to anything one can debate about. We could just add a first post to all threads that says 'go to scholar.google.com' and look for yourself!' but I don't think that's the point. The point of these (informal) threads is to break vast quantities of information down into specific chunks that a few people in the thread care about at this moment. In that context I don't think it's too much to ask from commenters to reference specific items, facts or studies, and not resort to 'read 300 page book xyz'.
The theoretical advantage of whole grain carbohydrates over refined carbohydrates is that the whole grains are less apt to cause a big dip in serum glucose that follows the huge insulin spike that follows consumption of refined carbs. That dip leads to insulin-induced hunger and possibly further caloric intake.
True. However, carbs in the form of whole foods (like whole grain bread) take longer to process and don't cause the insulin spike. The insulin response is part of the problem that these diets seek to address.
Some of the “low fat” foods are actually bad for you because they are high in HFCS or other sugary additives.
This is a biggie. Much bigger than people realize. Foods that are advertised as "low fat" must have those fat calories replaced with something. And that something is usually refined carbs of some sort, be it sugar, HFCS, or something else.
My wife has fructose intolerant, so we don't eat anything containing fructose or HFCS. You would be shocked to see how much food contains HFCS, and REALLY shocked to see how much "healthy" and "low fat" foods contain HFCS.
Obviously if you're fructose intolerant you need to avoid it, but HFSC isn't the evil it's been painted to be. I like reading this guys blog because it's no nonsense nutritional information with ALL his sources.
I appreciate your point, but typically you want to stay away from things that contain HFCS not simply because HFCS is "bad" for you, (jury is still out on that one), rather, because foods that contain it tend to be very calorie dense.
The problem with our diets as americans is that EVERYTHING contains sugar/HFCS.
For example, I get all my carbs from brown rice, and bran cereal. I have the occasional slice of 100% wheat bread. Why? Because almost all bread on the market contains HFCS and each slice is typically 110 calories. I'd rather get the same amount of calories from a much more satisfying bowl of brown rice and veggies then from a dense, unsatisfying piece of bread.
Nice writeup Paul. One thing I'd point out is that your dietary needs will evolve as your body and metabolism does. Once your body adapts to its new state and you start gaining muscle mass, you'll actually start needing more calories and you can relax on the little thing like egg yolks, etc.
Another thing that you might want to consider if you're not the hardcore gym type is adding some less traditional forms of exercise. A lot of people really get into martial arts despite not liking to "workout"; I know you like driving, so I'd recommend seeing if there are any good karting options in SF. Karting is crazy amounts of fun, and its a great all-around workout: http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=46561&PO=4656...
A lot of them eat egg whites only because egg yolks contain a little less than half of the protein but all of the fat and cholesterol. Some say that the cholesterol in yolks actually has a small impact on, and even reduces your blood cholesterol, but I haven't seen a definitive study.
Have you ever seen a study that links cholesterol intake to blood levels? I was looking for one long ago, and the only research I could find said that over 90% of cholesterol is produced by the body.
(I'm one of these people. My doctor told me that my blood cholesterol was too high for my age and I had to cut back on eggs. I cut back on eggs as well as foods containing saturated fat, and it's since gone down.)
Nicely done PStamatiou. I went thru the same crunch a couple of years ago and dropped bread, dairy, coffee etc and it made a world of difference.
I actually had the folks at the gym and some friends casually tell me to eat more food as I had taken it a bit too far. What happened was mostly me trying to find that sweet spot where you can get benefits from the gym and not overdo it on either side (weight too low versus weight too high).
Coffee can actually be an appetite suppressant. I don't think there's any reason to drop coffee for weight loss, but you'll probably want to reduce the added sugar and cream.
I've lost 30 pounds over the course of 6 months by eating more reasonable portions (No more downing 2 cokes, 1 lb of chicken wings, and fries in 1 sitting) and exercising more. I did this gradually, never too concerned about it. Sure it wasn't as quick as Paul's story here, but it works fine and requires very little effort.
The science behind losing weight really isn't complicated: just make sure your intake of calories is less than you need to sustain your current weight.
To lose 1 lb, you need to give up 3500 kcals. This can be accomplished by eating less, exercising more, or ideally, a combination of the two.
Say, you're a programmer, you're 6' and you weigh 220 lb. Assuming you don't exercise, you need to consume 2700 kcals to sustain your curent weight. If you want to lose 2 lb a week, a doable and healthy method would be to cut your calorie intake down to 2000 and burn 300 calories through exercise.
Ofcourse, the trick is to eat well, so that you don't feel hungry all the time. Foods that are rich in protein (like chicken, fish, beans and greek yogurt) will keep you from feeling hungry. Corn syrup, trans fat, and saturated fat are the stuff to stay away from (that's most processed foods), those will only make you more hungry.
Also, timing is important to keep from eating too much. Start with a breakfast rich in fiber, and don't skip meals during the day. Drinking enough water is important too, at least 8 glasses a day. And for each cup of coffee, compensate it with a glass of water.
Finally, knowing how many calories are in the foods you eat helps a lot. I use Livestrong.com's Daily Plate service to track my daily intake of calories, calorie goals, weight, and weight goals. Any math geek or stats addict looking to lose weight should use it. There's even a free DailyPlate iPhone app.
Of course, there's a big distinction between losing weight and losing fat. You can simply lower your calories and lose weight, but your body fat % might stay the same simply because you're also losing muscle mass too. That's why exercise is really the key, unless you want to get very militant about your food intake. You can lose fat without exercise, but it's not fun or easy.
"My motivation for going to the gym was rather stupid but it worked — I wanted to become the mayor on Foursquare. I never did get the mayorship.. the gym rat badge will have to suffice."
To gain muscle mass, you need lots of calories, and at least 35% of it to be protein. For a vegetarian, major natural sources of protein are beans (including soy) and dairy. Ofcourse, those also happen to be full of calories, so instead, I would recommend whey protein powder to support your usual diet. I personally find protein shakes gross, so here's a breakfast that works for me:
1) 1 part 0% fat greek yogurt, 1 part water (stir)
2) 1 scoop of whey protein powder
3) some sunflower seeds, oats and raisins
For a protein fix after a work-out, replace step 3 with some fresh fruit like strawberries or blueberries.
Also, switching from 3 meals a day to 6 or 7 smaller meals a day works miracles, but it might take some effort to accommodate such a switch. Preparing meals in advance goes a long way.
You just need to eat a lot more calories. You might be doing the wrong weightlifting routine. If you can do egg whites, those work pretty well. I went from 150 to 180 in college on a "hard gainer" program. My diet back then was: egg whites, brown rice, vegetables. Now I'm trying to get back down to about 165, so be careful what you wish for...
Lifting: What are you doing now? Squat every workout, and then switch back and forth between a benchpress/upper body and deadlift/lower body routine.
Eating: Eat more, especially protein. You probably will have to have shakes to get enough. Eat two more small meals during the day.
It took me a while to realize why I had my best gains in 1st year university. It was because I was on a meal plan, eating twice as much as I normally would.
And now, I am losing weight doing the same workout routine as usual. Why? Because my diet has drastically changed from living abroad.
A lot depends on your body and its preferences, so I wouldn't recommend anything specific yet. Nail down "what's healthy for you" before you aim to gain weight. If you can find the right diet, you can just eat more of it and add protein shakes[1], and you'll probably gain. But if it's the wrong diet, you can ignore its problems at a low level of consumption and function in daily life, but eating more will just make you feel ill, sleep poorly, etc. and amplify whatever was wrong with it in the first place. So figure out what you can eat a lot of easily, and what makes you sick. I did not gain until I did this.
[1] Again, a lot depends on what blend you're working with. Some are really bare-bones and use only one type of protein, others are heavily fortified meal replacements with a mix of different protein sources.
Up your calories. Since you're a vegetarian keep eating tons of veggies (snack on them all day if you can), actually everyone should take this advice. Eat nuts, great source of cals, good fat and healthy. Personally I like something better than peanuts.
Find a whey protein powder that you like. This will require some trial and error. Drink a serving post workout. In a pinch, chocolate milk will work fine.
I have found Muscle Milk to taste the best, but it's not cheap. Take a look at www.trueprotein.com for a good deal on protein, but you have build your own mix. If you get unflavored whey you can mix it with all sorts of things to simply up the protein content. Something to think about.
Finally, if you're still not gaining weight drink milk. The classic bulk was to drink 1/2 gallon or more/day in addition to your regular meals. I promise you'll start putting on weight then :)
One more thing, check your workout. Get a book like New Rules of Lifting or Huge in a Hurry to get a set of great professionally made workouts that will last nearly a year.
Vegetarian will be tough - although I don't have all the specifics, I remember hearing about how Tony Gonzales (NFL tight-end) went on a vegan diet and he seemed to be managing OK. Granted he was probably more in maintenance mode, but diet looked like it would provide enough protein for significant gains as well.
I'm probably not eating at a 500 calorie surplus, though I definitely eat all the food items you suggest.
I try to vary things, but I generally do pullups, squats, deadlifts, military press, inclined row, and bench press. Should I be doing something different?
I can recommend the book "Starting Strength" by Mark Rippetoe. (I learned about it after following some links in discussions here on HN.)
It has lots of information about the basic lifts: squat, deadlift, bench press, overhead press, and power cleans.
Your list seems pretty good already.
Without knowing anything, I bet 10 Pounds that your are probably doing the squat wrong. The first 60 pages in "Starting Strength" are about the squat, and they are necessary.
Rippetoe suggest three sets of five repetitions at your working weight for most lifts. Of course you should do some warm up sets at lower weights for each lift to avoid injury and work on form.
The advise from the book has worked pretty well for me. I started as a complete novice in April, and I am now lifting around 1.5 times bodyweight on the squat and the deadlift. (The other lifts have also progress nicely.)
you won't build muscle on a vegetarian diet. You need protein to build muscle, so you'll want eggs and meat. Alternatively you can try some of those protein shakes...but they aren't as fulfilling
Probably the only possible way to put on muscle mass as a vegan is with loads of soy protein. Which is pretty much toxic. Have fun with cancer and endocrine problems.
There's whey protein as well. That's what's in Muscle Milk and Pure Protein products. I'm not sure if whey protein is any better for your endocrine system, FWIW.
Have you tried taking protein powder along with your diet? Depending on how much you want to gain and the type of shake you get, you'd probably want to drink one within 20 mins of a weightlifting session and one a day in the morning.
1 scoop of many whey proteins provide 20+ grams of protein. If you throw 2 scoops thats 40 grams. Most yogurts don't even approach this. Then add milk, peanut butter, etc.
Some people also mix their whey with other things, such as in their oatmeal.
You can just eat more yogurt, but a lot of people go the shake route because its a lot easier to drink large amounts of protein than eat it.
Quark is a pretty decent source of protein (casein). I often put quark, milk and fruits (and oat meal) in a blender to make my own shakes. At least when I am too lazy to prepare a proper meal.
If you don't care to drink lots and lots of fluids, then you can just as well drink a few (say, 4) litres of milk a day. If you do the maths, you will find that there's a sizeable amount of proteins to be had this way.
A cup or two of lowfat plain yogurt will provide as much protein as a typical shake, and is a much more healthful option. Especially try Greek-style yogurt for higher protein concentrations.
"glycogen supercompensation" dieting definitely works. You eat zero carbs for about four days, going ketogenic. (Eat plenty of saturated fat instead; lots of butter.) Then you lift extra hard. Then for the rest of the day you eat a ton of carbs: loads of potatoes, whatever.
I don't think it's possible to put on a lot of muscle mass without either eggs or whey protein. If your vegetarian rules keep you away from even those protein sources, you may have to rethink your priorities.
And there are oystrovegans. Who eat vegan food and oysters. Because oysters have the mental capacities of venus flytraps. Incidentally I think this would be a good, mostly sustainable and cruelty-free diet, weren't it for the price of oysters.
I have a good moral argument that you should only eat animals and fungi, not plants:
Plants are autotrophs and don't eat other things. Animals are heterotrophs and do it other things. Applying the Golden Rule in reverse, it's fine to do to lifeforms what they do to others.
Simple Carbs like refined white flour, pastas – instead I opted for only whole grains, nothing milled or crushed.
Is he chewing on whole grains? Boiling them as porridge? I figure you have to mill or crush at some point to make most things. Whole grain flours, unbleached and with the germ/bran unfiltered seems fine to me. When dealing with wheat, some people may want to watch the gluten content as well, depending on their sensitivity.
"a post for programmers and startup folks that are looking for a way to learn some healthy eating habits while doing their necessary 12+ hours per day on the computer thing:"
That would be the FIRST thing that I would fix -- if you're doing 12+ hours per day on the computer, odds are you need to rethink your development process first, and then use the extra time to improve your health. Then reap the benefits that a healthier mind and body have one one's productivity.
This obsession with long hours is a bug, not a feature -- rather than trying to find ways to enable it, we should be looking at how to fix it.
I'm writing about my journey to getting in better shape as a programmer and I find stories like Paul's to be inspirational. Thanks for all the information Paul. My goal is two-fold: get in shape / live longer and to get as strong as possible. The "getting stronger" part keeps me motivated through those long and arduous cardiovascular workout sessions. Here's my journal:
Congrats on your success, even if you do get a few critical responses on your food choices. I had a lot of post-college weight to lose (45 pounds) and did it with cardio and not overeating. My diet stayed mostly the same, much to my wife's chagrin, but I got through all the weight in 9-10 months and it hasn't been back since (a few years now). Keep up the good work.
This is actually a great tip -- cast iron is not only great to cook in, it helps provide dietary iron, which is especially important if you're eating a diet light in red meat (which naturally contains iron) and prepared cereals (which tend to be fortified with it).
Also, 1,200kcal/day diets are brutal. Caloric restriction diets have overwhelming scientific evidence of being an ineffective strategy in the long term. Even if you have some elaborate food system with rest days, it doesn't matter. They fail for the overwhelming majority of people. They lose weight, fail to maintain the difficult diet, then pop back up.
Your body doesn't defy thermodynamics, but your metabolism is a clever thing. The best way to achieve permanent, long term body-fat loss is to reduce your diet to something reasonable and exercise (both aerobic and weight) regularly. I know hackers desperately want the clever solution, but as it stands there is no evidence-based way to get results that is as reliable as the "eat-less-workout-more" approach.