Less than 20 carbs ? Better results

(Kellie) #1

Will you loose more weight if you eat less than 20 carbs a day ? I usually eat 20 sometimes a little less but I was thinking of trying to do a few zero or very low carb days . Would that help aid in weightloss? I’m struggling a bit, only lost 2 pounds in 2 weeks - seems to be the trend for me I want better results I have 30 more pounds to loose

(Karen) #2

People who are very insulin resistant do well with fewer carbs, or no carbs. ZC

K

#3

Omg same! I’ve been on this diet for 2 weeks and only lost 2 lbs. 30 more to go as well!

(karen) #4

Just a reminder: The Biggest Loser is an unrealistic TV lie. Fat weight loss even in people who are water fasting is around .5 pounds a day, and even that depends on metabolic rate - how much energy your body needs to maintain itself. It’s a personal thing, but people who are smaller tend to need less energy. Women tend to need less energy. Older people tend to need less energy. Sedentary people tend to need less energy. That .5% is an average, based on burning 100% your own fat and nothing at all from your diet, in a tiny sedentary old lady it could be as little as 1/4 of a pound of fat a day.

So, especially if you came to keto without a lot of stored water in your body or dehydrated, and you’re eating a healthy amount of food, 1 pound a week is a pretty reasonable expectation. I know it doesn’t feel like something to set off fireworks over, but that’s a sustainable and measurable progress.

#5

Reduce carbs to keep get the body burning fats, as long as the body remains in ketosis then less carbs will not cause faster weight loss. After fully fat adapted and staying in ketosis then reduction of plate fat will speed up reduction of storage fat.

(Robert C) #6

If you are going from 20 “total” carbs that are truly incidental and from natural sources (broccoli, spinach, etc.) down to zero - I do not think you will notice much of a difference in terms of weight loss. I guess that would be pretty much going on the carnivore diet - it may not personally be sustainable or you might like it even more. It may help break a plateau but it is definitely more restrictive than keto.

If you are going from 20 “net” carbs that include things like energy bars and other questionable labeled processed foods that use all sorts of logic that get their “net” listing low - but actually still spike insulin (and don’t really account very well for incidental natural carbs) then I think shooting for zero carbs will make a bigger difference for you.

You may want to also look hard at your protein to fat ratio - too much protein might start to impede any help further carbohydrate reduction will get you.

#7

If you usually eat 20 carbs a day, reducing that isn’t going to do all that much. Calories do count, but those 20 grams of carbs aren’t much to reduce.

And you can’t cut your proteins by much, as your body does need them.

That really leaves reduction of fat. If you’re trying to lose weight, reducing your fat intake is where you would get the most return for the effort. Your body will use use your body fat if your fat intake isn’t sufficient. Which is what you want.

I didn’t start losing weight until I restricted my fat intake. Keto as an “all-you-can-eat fat and protein” WOE didn’t do much for me weight-wise because I love too many high-fat (and thus high calorie) foods – bacon, sausage, butter, cheese. I could eat thousands of calories of those foods every day if I let myself.

I used to joke that I could turn a 60-calorie veggie side dish into a 700-calorie one by adding “just a bit” of cheese and butter.

#8

Scientific American even documented the lie:

  • Researchers studied 14 contestants who participated in the 30-week competition, which involves intensive diet and exercise training.

  • They started at an average weight of 328 pounds (about 149 kg) and ended at an average weight of 200 pounds (about 91 kg).

  • Six years later, when the six men and eight women went to the National Institutes of Health for follow-up measurements, their weight, on average, was back up to 290 pounds. Only one participant hadn’t regained any weight.

  • Similarly, percent body fat started at an average of 49 percent, dipped to 28 percent and returned to 45 percent over time.

  • But resting metabolic rate did not follow the same pattern.

  • The group as a whole on average burned 2,607 calories per day at rest before the competition, which dropped to about 2,000 calories per day at the end.

  • Six years later, calorie burning had slowed further to 1,900 per day, as reported in the journal Obesity, May 2.

Imagine ending up back where you started, in terms of weight and fat percentage, but your BMR is reduced by 27%? “Calories in” now need to be reduced significantly to get any results based on CICO.

(karen) #9

yep. I’ve just been putting this out there today because I came across several posts from people who seemed to be reflecting the TV-fueled idea that losing less than 5 pounds a week = failure, either personal failure “what am I doing wrong” or diet failure “this isn’t working”.