Any truth to low carbs?

[cmt029]

In people's experience is there any truth to the idea the keeping your daily carbs low leads to your body burning more fat for energy? If you keep your protein high and carbs low will this help lead the body to keep muscle and burn fat?

Or is all that matters is hitting your calorie and protein goals?

[jdrush]

I am currently going from low carb to higher carbs slowly and so far I'm not noticing a difference, I'm still losing the same amount.

[hammerfelt]

If your body has little to no energy stored from carbohydrates it is going to have to use other stored energy to function.

[Maverick2015]

I think low carb will make you lose water weight faster. Otherwise carbs are great for quick energy. Keep a calorie deficit, hit at least minimum on protein and fat, then finish the calories with anything you want. I prefer to fill the rest with carbs and protein for the added energy as eating extra fat doesn't have any such benefits.

[cmt029]

Thanks guys... I'm going to raise my fat and decrease carbs to meet my daily calorie goal for the next week or so. I 'limited' myself to around 130 carbs yesterday and I admit I was exhausted in the gym last night. No idea if it was related.

I have noticed on the few days I've limited carbs so far I have been lighter on the scale the next morning, so perhaps water weight is related to it somehow. Anyway, I'm going to consistently keep the carbs low for the next week and see what happens.

[Znik]

In people's experience is there any truth to the idea the keeping your daily carbs low leads to your body burning more fat for energy? If you keep your protein high and carbs low will this help lead the body to keep muscle and burn fat?

Or is all that matters is hitting your calorie and protein goals?

Your body needs X amount of energy per day to sustain itself and perform activity, it doesn't matter if that energy comes from carbs,fat or protein. It will use whatever is available for fuel, less energy in than required = energy taken from fat stores to meet the energy requirement. So in short, calorie deficit burns fat, not what you eat.

Some people perform far worse in terms of energy and intensity on low carb, others don't notice a difference.
If you limit carbs you lose water weight, as excess carbs gets turn to glycogen which binds with 2-4g of water. Average human stores around 400g of glycogen at maintenance (lifters/athletes store more) so that's upwards of 2kg (4.4lbs) of glycogen and water stored, limit carbs and that gets reduced rapidly. Lifters and athletes can store upwards of 1000g of glycogen, which is why lifters can easily drop like 5-10lbs in a week on low carb.

[jwarrenfit]

Personally I stay under 150 on most days bulk Or cut. I don't think our bodies are designed to run off of 300-500gs of carbs a day. I will refeed with higher carbs once or twice a week however to retain my muscle mass

[the1true]

Im doing low carb started last week and so far ive lost 5 pounds but I get tired before the day is over...I may have to change something.

[Tigerzen]

I've tried different types of diets over the years, high fat, high protein you name it, I've done it. I find that low carb has an immediate effect on fat/weight loss but over a period of time, the law of diminishing returns applies. So it works great at the start but the benefits slow down over time. Many complain of energy reduction, I think you just get use to it over time. I think it's ok for the short term and is effective, more so than other types of diets. Now as to why they're effective, I've looked at some of the literature and it suggests water loss, this could be and I'm not an expert but I guess I've noticed that I don't look as puffy when I'm on a low carb diet.

[rimduglep]

I think there is some truth to the idea that the low-carb approach is superior to other approaches. I find that it's easiest to remain satiated if my protein is over one gram per pound of body weight and my fat intake is at least at the Emma Leigh guidelines. I typically only take in 40-80 grams of carbs on most days, save for the Saturday refeed where I probably take in 300-500 grams of carbs alone. I find that low-carbing reduces water weight and I never seem to hit a weight loss plateau. I never seem to feel like I'm dragging ass like some people report, either. I will say that if I do happen to carb up the night before a workout, that workout is always a giant disappointment. Doubly so if I had a two day break. Ridiculous.

I'm planning on keeping it pretty low-carb when I start a lean bulk in June or July. Some people have had really great luck staying leaner for longer this way.

[danmit]

There seems to be plenty of broscience and actual science to support both sides and it really does seem like something worth trialling on an individual basis. It isn't exactly hard to go low carb for a couple of weeks (don't give up after a few days since it can take a bit of time for the body to adapt and enter ketosis) and see how it compares to higher carb. Personally I find low carb with a weekly refeed works best for me at least when cutting, but I think the main benefit is satiation since the high protein and fat fills me up easily compared to fast digesting carbs; energy levels are at least on par. Others seem to struggle to do anything without carbs flowing through their system so your results may vary.

[Tommy W.]

You guys that are saying you lost weight quick then it stopped just lost water weight. As far as losing fat on low carbs it's because the carb calories weren't replaced with other macros so it was just a matter of lowering calories and nothing more. Your body prefers energy from carbs because it's easy but will get energy from whatever is thrown at it. It just always comes down to cals in and out so don't overcomplicate something simple.

[jwarrenfit]

for alot of people it goes beyond just the effect on body comp. Its about mood, sustainability, and long term health. Not saying you cant be healthy and eat higher carbs but theres alot of studies to show its optimal, at least from a longevity stand point, to not burn glucose all the time for fuel. Looking awesome is just a side effect.

Quote from frank zane

[ Q ] Speaking of becoming defined, how is your diet structured these days?


"My diet is always pretty strict. I will be 65 in a couple of weeks so I really don't eat very much. All the research shows that if you want to live longer, you eat less. So I never really eat more than about 2000 calories a day. And I get about one-gram of protein per-pound-of-bodyweight. I weigh usually between 170 to 175 pounds - a little lighter than before.

I find I can maintain definition better at a lighter bodyweight. Usually I don't get as much carbohydrate - about half to three quarters as many grams as compared to protein per day. Typically if I am training to reach a peak I will keep my carbohydrates low for three days in a row and then on the fourth day increase them to match my protein intake."

That would put zane in the 80-100 Gs of fat, or around 40% total caloric intake

[JaredPunch]

There could be some truth to it for some people but only already very lean and trying to get rid of stubborn fat but not for the reason many people believe because

1) low-carb diets don't really lower post-prandial insulin, so insulin doesn't really matter
2) in the absence of stored carbohydrates the body will burn the fat coming from the diet, the body has no reason to burn body fat is all the energy it needs are coming from food
3) fat loss is not about losing fat every moment you're on a cut, fat loss is about the negative balance between fat burned and fat stored, but you are always storing fat, after any meal, even on a diet that's how the body works. The body doesn't carbs to store fat so you still need a deficit to make the fat burned vs fat stored balance a negative one.

[jwarrenfit]

yes but the fat oxidation process is very similar whether its coming from diet or free fatty acids in the tissue. Because of this I believe it is easier to get into a fat burning mode in a deficit, without losing muscle mass. There are many others who theorize this, but i can only speak from personal experience. When i went into a similar deficit before i lost a good amount of lean muscle, after tapering carbs and doing CKD i was able to get to the BF i wanted with my desired amount of LBM

[Van4stan91]

Use to always cut with low carbs and would always fail. Cut by meeting protein and fat mins. and rest carbs = far superior for not only performance but sanity aswell. Just my 2 cents.

[jshpark]

You might be burning more fat, but that is only because you are eating more fat to displace the lost calories from reduced carbohydrates. If these calories aren't replaced, you will then be eating less. Net energy balance, bottom line. If eating low carb increases adherence to calorie restriction over the long term because of increased satiety, then do it for that reason alone, not for an imaginary hack around the laws of thermodynamics.

[jwarrenfit]

You might be burning more fat, but that is only because you are eating more fat to displace the lost calories from reduced carbohydrates. If these calories aren't replaced, you will then be eating less. Net energy balance, bottom line. If eating low carb increases adherence to calorie restriction over the long term because of increased satiety, then do it for that reason alone, not for an imaginary hack around the laws of thermodynamics.

def not a work around the law of thermodynamics but as ive said many times how are those calories being burned or stored? law of thermodynamics is about energy not fat burning or protein turnover or glucose utilization... those can and do vary. IMO of course and tons of experts and doctors in their fields.. but everyone has an opinion it should be formed and based off personal experience

[jshpark]

"law of thermodynamics is about energy" .... "not about fat (energy), protein (energy), glucose (energy)"

get adequate protein and get in a sustainable deficit. lifting stimulus is the most important for muscle retention. stop spouting BS

[JaredPunch]

Personally I stay under 150 on most days bulk Or cut. I don't think our bodies are designed to run off of 300-500gs of carbs a day. I will refeed with higher carbs once or twice a week however to retain my muscle mass

you're on paleo right? where do you get yor 140g of carbs from? And how many do you eat on refeed days and where they come from of those days?

[jwarrenfit]

"law of thermodynamics is about energy" .... "not about fat (energy), protein (energy), glucose (energy)"

get adequate protein and get in a sustainable deficit. lifting stimulus is the most important for muscle retention. stop spouting BS

i guess i should have said total energy, it doesnt begin to fully explain the complex mechanisms that involve which substrates are used. Anyway as you can see TS there is divided opinions. As i said try both, i personally have retained lean mass better.

[jwarrenfit]

you're on paleo right? where do you get yor 140g of carbs from? And how many do you eat on refeed days and where they come from of those days?

I guess im not technically paleo i just dont do processed foods i will have raw full fat dairy, fermented legumes and grains, and white rice.

On normal days its japanese yams and squash and greens. Refeeds i throw in raw honey, white rice and lower the fats. I refeed when I feel i need to.. usually every 3-6 days depends on alot of things... recovery, stress, sleep, bodyfat ect. Also dont fast on refeed days

[jshpark]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413101

Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND:
There remains no consensus about the optimal dietary composition for sustained weight loss.

OBJECTIVE:
The objective was to examine the effects of 2 dietary macronutrient patterns with different glycemic loads on adherence to a prescribed regimen of calorie restriction (CR), weight and fat loss, and related variables.

DESIGN:
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of diets with a high glycemic load (HG) (60%C, 20%P, 20%F w/ high-GI CHO Sources) or a low glycemic load (LG) (40%C, 30%P, 30%F w/ low-GI CHO Sources) at 30% CR was conducted in 34 healthy overweight adults with a mean (+/-SD) age of 35 +/- 6 y and body mass index (kg/m(2)) of 27.6 +/- 1.4. All food was provided for 6 mo in diets controlled for confounding variables, and subjects self-administered the plans for 6 additional months. Primary and secondary outcomes included energy intake measured by doubly labeled water, body weight and fatness, hunger, satiety, and resting metabolic rate.

RESULTS:
All groups consumed significantly less energy during CR than at baseline (P < 0.01), but changes in energy intake, body weight, body fat, and resting metabolic rate did not differ significantly between groups. Both groups ate more energy than provided (eg, 21% and 28% CR at 3 mo and 16% and 17% CR at 6 mo with HG and LG, respectively). Percentage weight change at 12 mo was -8.04 +/- 4.1% in the HG group and -7.81 +/- 5.0% in the LG group. There was no effect of dietary composition on changes in hunger, satiety, or satisfaction with the amount and type of provided food during CR.

CONCLUSIONS:
These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Abstract
The current study was initiated to determine whether insulin resistance and/or hyperinsulinemia affected the ability of obese individuals to lose weight in response to hypocaloric diets. Thirty-one obese, nondiabetic women, with values for body mass index ranging from 28.0-35.0 kg/m2, volunteered for this program. Resistance to insulin-mediated glucose disposal was assessed by determining their steady state plasma insulin and glucose concentration during the last 30 min of a 180-min infusion of ****tostatin, insulin, and glucose. The total integrated insulin response to breakfast and lunch was also determined. After the baseline measurements, volunteers were placed on a hypocaloric diet calculated to lead to a minimum weekly loss of 1% of ideal body weight. Individuals who met the criteria after 30 days of dieting were defined as weight loss successes (n = 20) and continued on the diet for another 30 days. Individuals not meeting the criteria were designated as weight loss failures (n = 12) and were discharged from the study. There was a mean (+/-SEM) weight loss at 60 days of 9.2 +/- 0.4 kg in the 20 individuals defined as weight loss successes, but there was no correlation between weight loss and either steady state plasma glucose or the total integrated insulin response (r < 0.1; P > 0.83). Furthermore, using the same criteria to define insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance as those for therapeutic successes, the therapeutic failures comprised six insulin-sensitive and five insulin-resistant subjects. In summary, insulin-mediated glucose disposal varied widely in nondiabetic, obese women, and there was no relationship between baseline insulin resistance or total integrated insulin response and weight loss. It is concluded that the ability to lose weight on a calorie-restricted diet over a short time period does not vary in obese, healthy women as a function of insulin resistance or hyperinsulinemia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Differences in glycaemic status do not predict weight loss in response to hypocaloric diets in obese patients.
de Luis DA1, Aller R, Izaola O, Gonzalez Sagrado M, Conde R.
Author information

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of our study was to detect differences in weigth loss with a hypocaloric diet in obese patients depending on their glycaemic status.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:
A population of 76 obesity outpatients was analysed in a prospective way. The following variables were specifically recorded at basal time and after 3 months of hypocaloric diet (1200 kcal/day): weight, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and waist-hip ratio. Basal glucose, insulin, fibrinogen, cortisol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides blood levels were measured. HOMA was calculated. An indirect calorimetry, tetrapolar electrical bioimpedance and a serial assessment of nutritional intake with 3 days written food records were performed.

RESULTS:
The mean age was 46.9 +/- 17.1 years and the mean BMI 34.6 +/- 5.3. All subjects were weight stable during the 2 weeks period preceding the study (body weight change, 0.3 +/- 0.1 kg). Anthropometric measurements showed an average waist circumference (108.7 +/- 15.7 cm), waist-to-hip ratio (0.93 +/- 0.11), and average weight (88.7 +/- 16.9 kg). Bipolar body electrical bioimpedance showed a fat mass of 37 +/- 12.3 kg. Indirect calorimetry showed a resting metabolic rate (RMR) (1674.3 +/- 392 kcal/day). Patients were divided in to two groups by glycaemic status (group I: normal glycaemic metabolism, fasting glucose levels <109 mg/dl; n = 50) and (group II: impaired glycaemic metabolism, fasting glucose levels >110 mg/dl, n = 26). Waist circumference (I: 108 +/- 17.1cm vs. 104.6 +/- 16.7 cm; P < 0.05) and (II: 113.6 +/- 9.8 cm vs. 110.9 +/- 8.9 cm; P < 0.05), weight (I: 90.6 +/- 19.2 kg vs. 86.3 +/- 18.6 kg:P < 0.05) and (II: 89.2 +/- 11.3 kg vs. 86.4 +/- 11.6 kg: P < 0.05) and BMI (I: 34.2 +/- 5.6 vs. 33.7 +/- 5.5; P < 0.05) and (II: 34.8 +/- 4.2 vs. 34.2 +/- 4.6; P < 0.05) improved in both groups with hypocaloric diet. Blood systolic pressure, total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol improved in both groups, without statistical differences. In group II improved glucose levels and HOMA index, too. Patients of group II had higher systolic blood pressure, glucose, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, lipoprotein (a), RCP levels and HOMA index than patients in group I. ANOVA analysis did not show differences among weight loss in tertiles of HOMA and glucose.

CONCLUSION:
Ability to lose weight on a hypocaloric diet over a 3-month time period does not vary in obese patients as a function of glycaemic status. Improvement in cardiovascular risk factors is not related with glycaemic status, too.

[jshpark]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Comparison of isocaloric very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk.
Noakes M1, Foster PR, Keogh JB, James AP, Mamo JC, Clifton PM.
Author information

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
It is speculated that high saturated fat very low carbohydrate diets (VLCARB) have adverse effects on cardiovascular risk but evidence for this in controlled studies is lacking. The objective of this study was to compare, under isocaloric conditions, the effects of a VLCARB to 2 low saturated fat high carbohydrate diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk.

METHODS:
Eighty three subjects, 48 +/- 8 y, total cholesterol 5.9 +/- 1.0 mmol/L, BMI 33 +/- 3 kg/m2 were randomly allocated to one of 3 isocaloric weight loss diets (6 MJ) for 8 weeks and on the same diets in energy balance for 4 weeks: Very Low Fat (VLF) (CHO:Fat:Protein; %SF = 70:10:20; 3%), High Unsaturated Fat (HUF) = (50:30:20; 6%), VLCARB (4:61:35; 20%)

RESULTS:
Percent fat mass loss was not different between diets VLCARB -4.5 +/- 0.5, VLF-4.0 +/- 0.5, HUF -4.4 +/- 0.6 kg). Lean mass loss was 32-31% on VLCARB and VLF compared to HUF (21%) (P < 0.05). LDL-C increased significantly only on VLCARB by 7% (p < 0.001 compared with the other diets) but apoB was unchanged on this diet and HDL-C increased relative to the other 2 diets. Triacylglycerol was lowered by 0.73 +/- 0.12 mmol/L on VLCARB compared to -0.15 +/- 0.07 mmol/L on HUF and -0.06 +/- 0.13 mmol/L on VLF (P < 0.001). Plasma homocysteine increased 6.6% only on VLCARB (P = 0.026). VLCARB lowered fasting insulin 33% compared to a 19% fall on HUF and no change on VLF (P < 0.001). The VLCARB meal also provoked significantly lower post prandial glucose and insulin responses than the VLF and HUF meals. All diets decreased fasting glucose, blood pressure and CRP (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION:
Isocaloric VLCARB results in similar fat loss than diets low in saturated fat, but are more effective in improving triacylglycerols, HDL-C, fasting and post prandial glucose and insulin concentrations. VLCARB may be useful in the short-term management of subjects with insulin resistance and hypertriacylglycerolemia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial.
Dansinger ML1, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ.
Author information

Abstract
CONTEXT:
The scarcity of data addressing the health effects of popular diets is an important public health concern, especially since patients and physicians are interested in using popular diets as individualized eating strategies for disease prevention.

OBJECTIVE:
To assess adherence rates and the effectiveness of 4 popular diets (Atkins, Zone, Weight Watchers, and Ornish) for weight loss and cardiac risk factor reduction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
A single-center randomized trial at an academic medical center in Boston, Mass, of overweight or obese (body mass index: mean, 35; range, 27-42) adults aged 22 to 72 years with known hypertension, dyslipidemia, or fasting hyperglycemia. Participants were enrolled starting July 18, 2000, and randomized to 4 popular diet groups until January 24, 2002.

INTERVENTION:
A total of 160 participants were randomly assigned to either Atkins (carbohydrate restriction, n=40), Zone (macronutrient balance, n=40), Weight Watchers (calorie restriction, n=40), or Ornish (fat restriction, n=40) diet groups. After 2 months of maximum effort, participants selected their own levels of dietary adherence.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
One-year changes in baseline weight and cardiac risk factors, and self-selected dietary adherence rates per self-report.

RESULTS:
Assuming no change from baseline for participants who discontinued the study, mean (SD) weight loss at 1 year was 2.1 (4.8) kg for Atkins (21 [53%] of 40 participants completed, P = .009), 3.2 (6.0) kg for Zone (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P = .002), 3.0 (4.9) kg for Weight Watchers (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P < .001), and 3.3 (7.3) kg for Ornish (20 [50%] of 40 completed, P = .007). Greater effects were observed in study completers. Each diet significantly reduced the low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio by approximately 10% (all P<.05), with no significant effects on blood pressure or glucose at 1 year. Amount of weight loss was associated with self-reported dietary adherence level (r = 0.60; P<.001) but not with diet type (r = 0.07; P = .40). For each diet, decreasing levels of total/HDL cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and insulin were significantly associated with weight loss (mean r = 0.36, 0.37, and 0.39, respectively) with no significant difference between diets (P = .48, P = .57, P = .31, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS:
Each popular diet modestly reduced body weight and several cardiac risk factors at 1 year. Overall dietary adherence rates were low, although increased adherence was associated with greater weight loss and cardiac risk factor reductions for each diet group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

A randomized trial of a low-carbohydrate diet for obesity.
Foster GD1, Wyatt HR, Hill JO, McGuckin BG, Brill C, Mohammed BS, Szapary PO, Rader DJ, Edman JS, Klein S.
Author information

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Despite the popularity of the low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat (Atkins) diet, no randomized, controlled trials have evaluated its efficacy.

METHODS:
We conducted a one-year, multicenter, controlled trial involving 63 obese men and women who were randomly assigned to either a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet or a low-calorie, high-carbohydrate, low-fat (conventional) diet. Professional contact was minimal to replicate the approach used by most dieters.

RESULTS:
Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [+/-SD], -6.8+/-5.0 vs. -2.7+/-3.7 percent of body weight; P=0.001) and 6 months (-7.0+/-6.5 vs. -3.2+/-5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), but the difference at 12 months was not significant (-4.4+/-6.7 vs. -2.5+/-6.3 percent of body weight, P=0.26). After three months, no significant differences were found between the groups in total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. The increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations and the decrease in triglyceride concentrations were greater among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet than among those on the conventional diet throughout most of the study. Both diets significantly decreased diastolic blood pressure and the insulin response to an oral glucose load.

CONCLUSIONS:
The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.

[ChrisAchilles]

In people's experience is there any truth to the idea the keeping your daily carbs low leads to your body burning more fat for energy? If you keep your protein high and carbs low will this help lead the body to keep muscle and burn fat?

Or is all that matters is hitting your calorie and protein goals?

Personally, I hate low carb diets and would never do it or have a client do it for any more than maybe 2-3days MAX. But even then, I still would have carbs 100 or more. and that is still what id consider too low for most

[jshpark]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

No effect of inhibition of insulin secretion by diazoxide on weight loss in hyperinsulinaemic obese subjects during an 8-week weight-loss diet.
Due A1, Flint A, Eriksen G, Møller B, Raben A, Hansen JB, Astrup A.
Author information

Abstract
AIM:
Obesity is positively associated with hyperinsulinaemia, and it has been suggested that hyperinsulinaemia may contribute to maintain the obese state in insulin-resistant obese individuals. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of inhibition of insulin secretion by diazoxide on weight loss in obese, normoglycaemic (fasting plasma glucose of > or =6.1 mmol/l), hyperinsulinaemic (fasting plasma insulin of > or =100 pmol/l) adults during a 2.5 MJ/day energy-deficient diet.

METHODS:
In an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel design, 35 overweight and obese subjects (age: 23-54 years, body mass index: 27-66 kg/m(2)) were randomized either to 2 mg/kg/day (maximum 200 mg/day) of oral diazoxide or to placebo. Body composition and resting energy expenditure (REE) were measured before and after the intervention. Blood samples, and appetite sensations by visual analogue scales, were collected during fasting, during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and 4 h postprandially after a test meal. Subsequently, an ad libitum meal was given.

RESULTS:
Thirty-one subjects completed the protocol. Eight weeks of diazoxide decreased incremental area under the response curve (iAUC) for insulin (iAUC(insulin)) and for C-peptide (iAUC(C-peptide)) and increased iAUC for glucose (iAUC(glucose)) during the OGTT and the test meal compared with the use of placebo (p < 0.003). No differences in changes between the groups in body weight, body fat, REE or appetite were observed during the 8-week trial.

CONCLUSION:
These findings do not suggest that hyperinsulinaemia per se contributes to maintenance of the obese state, and insulin secretion inhibition seems not a promising drug target.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

1500 kcals each, 33g (keto) vs 157g (non-keto)

Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.
Johnston CS1, Tjonn SL, Swan PD, White A, Hutchins H, Sears B.
Author information

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet.

OBJECTIVE:
We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet.

DESIGN:
Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 34.4 +/- 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with approximately 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; approximately 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled.

RESULTS:
Mean (+/-SE) weight losses (6.3 +/- 0.6 and 7.2 +/- 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood beta-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood beta-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum gamma-glutamyltransferase concentrations decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet.

CONCLUSIONS:
KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

[jshpark]

Compare leaner people who are active and participate in resistance exercise programs and it is not even an issue unless your diet affects performance in a deleterious manner (low carb), in which case your performance will be affected, more-so for endurance based athletes.

[jwarrenfit]

I could give lengthy replies but your not worth the effort. In a study where there is no significant difference that doesn't mean there is none, doesn't mean they are easily controlled, and there are people on both sides of every study who have done great and not so great. One is not proven any better, so as any reasonable person would say try and see how ya feel. But give it a fair shot.

[jshpark]

i guess i should have said total energy, it doesnt begin to fully explain the complex mechanisms that involve which substrates are used. Anyway as you can see TS there is divided opinions. As i said try both, i personally have retained lean mass better.

guess what? all the complex mechanisms, whether we understand them fully or not, all add up to your total metabolism, a.k.a total transfer/transformation/loss due to inefficiency of energy, a.k.a TDEE of your biological processes. If you are in a net deficit, expending a measure of energy above what is used by your body in sum (all the complex mechanisms), assuming you are resistance training, getting adequate protein, and in context with body fat levels, most of the net energy lost will come from fat which will be aerobically oxidized and you will lose weight as you breath out CO2 (mass). Going low carb doesn't magically cause you to have a higher net fat loss unless you are comparing extremes and situations out of context like you have been doing, in which case, such cases could be made in either direction and they both would be ridiculous.

your not worth the effort

I could have easily said the same but I'm tired of you giving **** advice to innocent people.

[200scars]

I don't know about the weight loss aspect but low carb makes me feel a lot better. I wake up earlier and I'm less tired