Sometimes I think this board is really too biased when it comes to carbs and dieting. Macro nutrient profiles can make a difference, especially protein. But, by FAR, the biggest contributing factor in increased BF is and will always be consuming too many calories.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lyle McDonald
So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this:
1. A sufficient protein intake will always beat out an insufficient protein intake, no matter what you do. Since all of the diets described in this book are based around sufficient protein, this is a non-issue.
2. Assuming caloric intake can be controlled (and protein is adequate of course), shuffling of carbs and fats tends to have a minor, approaching negligble effect.
3. There might be exceptions at the extremes (folks going to single digit bodyfat or extreme obesity) but that doesn’t apply to the majority of folks.
|
Is a Calorie a Calorie? | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Lyle also has a great 4 part article series discussing different dietary approaches along with their benefits and/or disadvantages.
Comparing the Diets: Part 1 | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Comparing the Diets: Part 2 | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Comparing the Diets: Part 3 | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Comparing the Diets: Part 4 | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
Here's Alan Aragon as he talks about fat not impeding fat loss...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alan Aragon
More proof that having fat with carbs won’t hinder fat loss
A relatively recent trial examined the effects of 3 diets consisting of roughly 1400 kcals each for 8 weeks, followed by 4 weeks of maintenance [3]. The diets had the following macronutrient proportions: a) very low fat (70% carb, 10% fat, 20% protein), b) high unsaturated fat (50% carb, 30% fat, 20% protein), and c) very low carb (4% carb, 61% fat, 35% protein). Since none of the groups were told to separate their fat and carb intake, the high unsaturated fat group should have lost the least amount of fat because of all that dreadful mixing, right? On the contrary, no significant differences were seen in total weight loss, or loss of bodyfat percent. And here’s the kicker: this lack of difference in bodyfat reduction was seen despite the distinctly different effects each diet had on fasting insulin levels.
Another recent trial compared two 1500 calorie diets, a non-ketogenic diet and a ketogenic one [4]. Insulin sensitivity was equally improved between the groups. No inhibition of fat loss was seen in the non-ketogenic diet despite the fact that it was moderate in both fat (30%) and carbs (40%). In fact, the non-keto group lost more bodyweight and bodyfat than the keto group, although neither of these effects was statistically significant. It appears that any threat of fat/carb combining slowing fat loss is imagination-based.
|
Carbs and Fat: Friends After all? - Fat Loss Troubleshooter-Leigh Peele
I've said it several times on these boards. There is substantial research on different dieting protocols. When calories are controlled and adequate protein is met, differences between various carb/fat ratios tend to be insignificant. Everyone wants to blame some evil food for their weight issues but 95% of the time you just eat too damn much.