Is it the Carbs...or the Calories?

Ever since I read several of Dr. Mike Eades' books, took what he said about my size to heart, and then began to incorporate a few of his ideas and beliefs into my current plan, I've run into LOTS of opposition from low-carb folks. Granted..."some" of that is an outgrowth of the KK scandal, but moreso the mistaken notions and beliefs about carbs and their role in the diet that have sprouted and grown out of proportion within the low carb community.

Recently, Mike Eades did a post about the "major" cause of weight loss stalls, entitled Low Carb and Calories that I found very interesting. Not the post itself, because the ideas presented therein were not new. Not to anyone who has read Dr. Eades' writings. In fact, I've posted about some of them before. But what was interesting was the response he got to that post.

It seems to be a pretty common thing these days, for folks to start out great with their low carb plan of choice, but then part-way to goal, run into what seems to be a brick wall. No matter what they do, they just don't seem to be able to get the scale moving downwards again. Read any low carb forum or egroup, and you'll see that stalls or slower than expected weight loss is a major topic that comes up consistently.

So who better to address the topic, than Dr. Eades himself....right? Afterall, he's an actual, bonifide, living, low-carb doctor. Someone who actually believes in the cause...following a low carb diet.

Well--maybe.

Because what we each believe "is" the Cause, seems to differ. As well as what should or should not be done, in regards to living low carb. So a LOT of folks didn't appear to like what he had to say. It went totally against their belief system, some of their experience, and what the low carb community in general would say.

When we first begin to control our carb intake, our blood sugar falls, so protein is turned into glucose to solve the problem. This causes a rise in glucagon, which combined with low insulin sends a signal to our fat cells to release stored fat. Great. To lose stored body fat, "ALL" we have to do is lower our carb intake....right?

Well--not exactly.

While it's true that on a low-carb diet we burn fat for energy, a whole lot of low carbers eat quite a bit of the stuff. Sometimes as much as 75 or even 80% of their total calories. For some, this doesn't seem to be a problem, but for others it very well "can" be. Because the body doesn't just burn stored body fat, it also burns dietary fat, so if you are consuming enough fat to meet "all" of your body's energy needs, your body WON'T go after the fat stored in your fat cells, no matter how severely you restrict your carbs.

I learned this very clearly for myself when I tried doing a nearly zero carb diet awhile back when I had run into that low-carb brick wall myself. Instead of releasing and burning the stored fat from my fat cells, like the greater majority of low carbers believe will happen if you "just" keep your carbs low, the fat I was eating went straight into those fat cells. Thanx to the lowered Insulin level leaving that door wide open.

Now there's a lot of controversy over just what a low carb diet should consist of calorie wise, as well as how and why they work. Especially with all the fears being expressed lately over what is perceived to be starvation mode and/or metabolic advantage. So I found it interesting that the article actually SANCTIONED a 1,000 calorie deficit, and called it a NORMAL deficit in fact, quite common for the greater majority of low carb dieters.

Well...maybe in his practise. And maybe at his forum. But I've personally been confronted for eating a much less deficit than that. Recently being informed that anything more than 500 will bring on starvation mode.

Even so, "that" was NOT what upset folks about this post (in the comments section). What upset them the most was that he even brought up the subject of calories at all!!! Even though it's very true that as we get smaller, our caloric needs go down. Because that wasn't something they wanted to hear. Especially since the foods he condemned as being "most likely" responsible for weight loss stalls were high-fat, high-calorie, snack foods that comprise the majority of a typical low carb diet. At least, according to the posted menus I've been reading lately.

Now Dr. Eades says it is not true that if you keep your carbs below a certain level, you will automatically lose weight. Yet the greater majority of low carb folks actually do believe this. And will fight for this belief at the price of falling short of their goals. It's almost like they would rather be "right" than "succeed." Because the price isn't what they WANT to believe. Unfortunately, it doesn't work the way they want it to. And like the doc says, if there isn't a calorie deficit, fat will NOT leave the fall cell. It's as simple as that.

Now the other interesting thing that Dr. Eades said (and you have to read through the comments section in order to find his thoughts/beliefs about this) is that "the body doesn't go into starvation mode with a low-carb diet."

Hmmmm. Seems to be quite contrary to what a lot of low-carbers believe, doesn't it.

He does go on to qualify some of his remarks, by talking to someone who has found themself pretty much in the same situation I used to be in. Where they are eating 800 to 1,000 calories on a low carb diet, because they are currently unable to raise them without gaining. What most call starvation, Dr. Eades calls ADAPTION. The body adapts to your current level of calories by lowering energy expenditure. Which explains (to me at least) why a lot of prominent, long time low carbers are maintaining at such a LOW maintenance level of calories.

Interesting indeed.