Fat is just stored energy. If we cut calories, then we use fat for energy. Low carb, which I follow, is just a manipulation of that. By cutting carbs, we burn fat for energy, which is why I am not hungry. Even if I do not eat, my body has food. It is the fat that I accumulated over my lifetime.
I am just prolonging the state of fat-burning, instead of only being in ketosis at night, while fasting. Low carb isn't required for this to occur, but if one is consuming more carbs than they need, why would they ever need to use their stored fat. Hence the idea of caloric restriction.
The difference is that while a high carb dieter is constantly feeling cravings, and is struggling to stay at 1500 or 1800 calories, and more likely to cheat, I can eat at such levels, without any hunger/cravings. I eat only because it is time to eat.
So both diets can work if you stick to 1500/1800 calories, but one is more likely for you to overeat on.. the one that has the dieter feeling hunger/cravings. Low carb has it's own problems ( people quit because it is strict ), so you still have to stay on either diet, but it is much more likely that a person overeats on a diet they are constantly thinking about food on.
Both diets need to be tailored to the individual. Low carb dieters change over time, so something they find strict becomes less so over time, while a 1500 calorie dieter, stays at 1500 calories.
The goal there is to make it a 1500 calorie diet that is filling, so it is more about what the person eats to reach their caloric limit, than it is the limit.. not because calories don't matter, but because they DO, and if they are hungry, they will overeat.
Most people can't even imagine a life without cravings. They would never forget dinner. They would say. I get hungry around 7 p.m. They think about food all day long. THIS is the problem. Remove the hunger, and no one overeats. I found that with low carb, but I am sure that a dietitian could devise a higher carb menu that did the same.
Judging by the 70 % overweight in America though, they have either failed to do so, or no one likes the food on the plan. So they eat foods that cause cravings, and then amazingly overeat.
The solution is a plan where you experience no hunger/cravings, and the food is delicious. Common thought today, is that such a diet doesn't exist, so people diet on tasteless low fat food, and they don't stick to it for long. Not saying it doesn't work, according to the law of thermodynamics.. it fails on the Law of Larry's Lunch. So if low fat food is bad, that leaves low fat food, and if the kind recommended by doctors tastes horrible, people start looking for tastier low fat food. Of course, this is done with sugar, and salt, and these cause cravings, but that is okay.. the food is cheap.. just buy and eat more.
We need to stop and realize that life isn't a lab experiment. If a diet works on a blackboard, but not in practice.. IT DOES NOT WORK. It COULD work, but DOESN'T.
My guess is that somewhere in between strict low carb, and high carb/low fat, there is a happy medium. I don't expect a majority to eat a ketogenic diet like I do, nor should they, but if we got over our fear of fat, we might be able to not only increase taste by having fat move back to 40 %, but also cut carbs to 40 %, and at the same time, focus more on healthy carbs.
Look at kids today. They hate veggies. We steam them because fat is bad. So they taste like crud. So the result is kids do not eat veggies for carbs.. they consume Coke, and Pop Tarts ( which taste awwwwwesome! ). If you put 3 cups of veggies in a stir-fry with some chicken, and some fat, it would taste better, and you wouldn't hear anything about the veggies.Teaching them that veggies have healthy nutrients they need, seems to not be working, nor does telling them Coke and Pop Tarts are bad.
How about we try making the vegetables taste better?? Maybe then, they would eat veggies, instead of Pop Tarts. You don't need to make vegetables more delicious than Pop Tarts, just close enough that it becomes a choice. then their brain can take over. If the vegetables are edible, then the gap in taste is close enough that they may decide in favor of nutrition. We are asking them to be healthier, with the benefit that it tastes horrible. They aren't going to do that. They may go for healthy though, if the healthy food is okay tasting. They DO still have brains, and want to be healthy.
Then, when they stopped eating Coke and Pop Tarts, without all the sugar, you would find that they had less cravings, and didn't overeat as much.
As far as emotional eating, there is some thought that sugar consumption triggers mood swings, especially depression, and if you are depressed with cravings, and there is a tub of ice cream...... well.... you know!
As always, we have staked out the far ends of the issue.. low carb.. high carb, and no one is exploring the middle. Some low carbers do very well at 120-150, but even other low carbers don't consider them to be on low carb. When we think of low carb, we think of 20-50 grams, which I admittedly do, but because I am diabetic. I think most healthy people would thrive if we moved to 120-180 grams a day, with less hunger, and tastier food, and would stop overeating.
Of course, that would be a compromise, and no one wants to " lose ", so we stick to very low carb, and very high carb, and 70 % overweight, since most Americans find neither diet one they can follow for very long, at least not at the caloric levels that would allow them to lose weight, according to the math problems.
"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "
- Albert Einstein
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”
- Henry Ford
| current weight: 179.6