3 ms·
> It's that I have a desire to eat dramatically fewer calories on a low-carb diet Precisely my experience as well. While it’s true that really no one type of
by bootsz 8y ago
> It's that I have a desire to eat dramatically fewer calories on a low-carb diet
Precisely my experience as well. While it’s true that really no one type of nutrient is universally bad or evil and technically weight loss comes down to calories in/out, there is a huge difference in how satisfied you feel after eating X amount of calories in various forms. I can eat an entire loaf of good bread or a big bag of chips without even thinking about it. Fats are tasty too but I don’t find myself wanting to gorge on them to the same extent.
- AstralStorm 8y agoUnless you're carefully measuring you're probably fooling yourself. Alternatively you're eating highly not satisfying foods on the other diets. Which most of the low fat foods are, especially ones marketed for dieting, which are laden with sugar - which means those calories come at the expense of carbs that are slower to absorb. Then there's the effect of added protein uptake which is known to reduce appetite. It is easy to end up with a meaningful difference in this value, what with low carb diets increasing meat intake. The difference is real though and about what I have noticed in burn rates. The actual question is, as always, whether the about 10% faster weight loss is worth any health consequences. Additionally, whether the normocaloric variant is safe is still up in the air - with some big metastudy showing increased total mortality without CHD and stroke morbidity. No idea what's up with that, perhaps some sort of reserve missing or nutrient lacking...