Can You Get Fatter on a Low Carb Diet (Jimmy Moore asks Richard Feinman)

[Mitra]

Can you actually get fatter on a low carb diet? (http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2008/04/can-you-actually-get-fatter-on-low-carb.html)

Lots of us have agonised over this question! One of Jimmy Moore's readers found that for the first couple of months he could eat all he wanted and watch the weight drop off, but as time went by it wasn't happening any more. Jimmy Moore referred the question on to Dr Richard Feinman, and this is Feinman's answer:Gary Taubes' position is an exaggeration. The way we describe it to medical students is that insulin (via carbohydrate) is like the handle on a faucet. The handle regulates the flow from dietary fat into stored fat. If you turn down the handle, the flow is drastically reduced but if you supply enough fluid pressure from the reservoir, you will increase the rate through the faucet--it's not a perfect analogy but you get the idea.

Remember that there is always insulin--whereas insulin turns off production of glucagon (the hormone that signals low glucose). And glucagon turns on insulin production. For many people--my guess is probably half the male population--keeping carbs low makes it very hard to overpower the inhibition in the fat storage mechanism but for some people the level of total calories that is required to continue to lose weight may be very low indeed.

The impact of the ideas behind Livin' La Vida Low-Carb is that fat plays a passive role and that its disposition (storage or oxidation) is controlled by insulin and other hormones which are control elements--it does not mean, however, that fat is not important. You can overpower a low carb diet and, depending on your age, 2500 calories may be a limit on weight loss.

On the other hand, from a practical standpoint, the real advantage of Livin' La Vida Low-Carb is that you don't have to think about food all the time and maintaining your weight is actually a real accomplishment. There are some tricks that may help--I have observed anecdotally and Dr. Mike Eades (from Protein Power) saw this regularly in his clinic that the three things that look okay on a low carb diet but may actually be trouble are cheese, nuts, and peanut butter. But if you are living in the Netherlands, giving up gerijpte Gouda (is that the right term?) might be a major sacrifice.

Hope this helps,

Richard D. Feinman

(The 2500 calories that Feinman mentions is what the person who asked the original question said they were eating.)

It's a shame he didn't say anything about the female population! Just that about half the male population probably won't need to worry about calories if they keep their carbs low.

[Mitra]

I just saw a comment has come through on Dr Mike's blog (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/metabolism-and-ketosis/#comment-118068) asking a very similar question:Hi Dr. Mike:

Great article, as others have noted.

I have been on LC for one year exactly. As many others have experienced, my weight loss went from 3 lbs/wk. to 2 to 1 to 1/2 over the course of about 6 months, which was fine. I dropped 20 lbs. in 6 months, and hoped to drop another 10. I stayed on Atkins induction for about 4-6 weeks, then gradually increased carbs to maybe 40-60 grams a day. I don’t restrict calories or particularly pay attention to them.

Over the last 3 to 4 months, I have put back on about 8 lbs, slowly. I had an idea that that might be due to ‘adaptation,’ or my body becoming more ‘efficient,’ which I think your blog bears out. However, I am wondering ‘what’s a brother to do?’ My inclination is to either a) reduce carbs or b) reduce calories. Would either or both of these approaches be better/effective? My ketostrips show ketosis infrequently or possible very light pink at this point, but occasionally a more obvious purple.

Frankly, I hate being hungry, which is one of the advantages of LC dieting — I lost the insulin resistant roller coaster which left me hungry and distracted a lot of the time when I went LC. Therefore, I’d rather reduce carbs, but I’m not really sure what, physiologically, is going on. I don’t know, offhand, my BMI at this point, but I do know that my weight should probably be around 150-155, but is now closer to 170.

Thanks.

Hey Jeff–

I received an email yesterday from a doctor who has a couple of patients whom he says are compliant with the low-carb diet he has them on and who are not losing. Here is my response to him:

It’s been my experience that when compliant patients (and it’s often tough telling who’s compliant and who is not) fail to lose weight on rigid low-carb diets, they are consuming too many calories.

A low-carb diet quickly increases insulin sensitivity and decreases circulating insulin levels putting the patient into the proper metabolic hormonal milieu to allow fat to easily leave the fat cells. Problem is that fat doesn’t need to leave the fat cells if enough calories are coming in via the diet to meet all the patient’s energy needs. Usually this isn’t a problem because in most people a low-carbohydrate diet brings about a spontaneous reduction of energy intake as a consequence of its satiating effect. But a handful of patients can eat enough kcal on a low-carb diet to meet their energy needs without their having to resort to stored fat. In my experience the three foods most commonly overeaten are cheese, nuts and nut butters. Patients can consume huge numbers of kcal from these foods while still remaining within their carb restriction levels.

The first thing I do with patients like these is to go through their diet diaries and look for these foods and other high-energy foods. Usually pointing out what’s happening and instruction on getting calories down is enough to get weight loss going. I also sometimes put these patients on one or two meal replacement protein shakes per day to get things moving.

The amazing thing about this situation is that these patients consuming pretty enormous amounts of calories don’t gain weight as long as they keep their carbs restricted. Try that with a high-calorie, high-carb diet and you won’t see the same results.

A couple of other thoughts since these are both women…it might be wise if you haven’t done it to check their reproductive hormonal status. If they are on synthetic hormones, I would switch them to bioidentical hormones. And I might check their iodine levels as well. Many overweight women are iodine deficient, which impairs their ability to lose weight.

Hope this helps.

MRE

[maxlharris]

Aha. Inevitably, at some point, calories do count.

I wonder what's so special about cheese, nuts and peanut butter? Caloric density? Fat content? Ease with which 1 ounce turns to 3? I'm not going to say my observation is any different, but have always wondered what's so special about cheese, peanut butter and non-almond nuts.

[Ammy]

This is me 100%.
I can eat 2500 calories in a day and sit on my butt all day, and as long as it's not carbs, I maintain my weight...
AHA says I should have 1800 to lose weight, 2000 to maintain, 2400 for active lifestyle.

I also think that is why I'm not losing weight...my protein/calories are too high. Hence me trying to reduce the amounts so I can start losing again.

[lczeledoc]

I can consume 4,000+ kcal/day and not gain weight, as long as it is low carb. But I have to reduce to around 2500 kcal/day to lose. Wine throws the whole thing off, then there is the cheese...

[Ammy]

MMmmm.....cheeessssseeeeeeeeee

[Mitra]

I can consume 4,000+ kcal/day and not gain weight, as long as it is low carb. But I have to reduce to around 2500 kcal/day to lose. Wine throws the whole thing off, then there is the cheese...

And when you have both wine and cheese ...

[maxlharris]

If I eat 4000 kcal, I'm either not holding carbs low or I'm so stuffed I don't feel good. If I eat the way they tell you do (satisfied, not stuffed), and keep carbs <50, I, at worst, maintain. Sometimes, I even lose.

Here's maybe a useful analogy for weight loss. When you have a 40+ lb amount to lose, you are like a fruit tree. The lbs of fat are your fruit. There are some that you can get just by reaching up (standard, ad lib LC). There are some that you have to stretch for (eliminate trigger foods, do intervals, whatever) and some you might need a ladder for (watch calories tightly). There might even be some that you don't want to get (<healthy Body fat %age). There might even be some that you cannot get (your brain is 60% fat... you wouldn't want to dump that). At some point, for some goals, a lot of people are gonna have to tighten cals.

I know that this might be depressing, but I don't think it's news.

As for gain on LC, I'd watch the carb count, the alcohol, the dairy, and easy to underestimate foods (like peanut butter, nuts, fruits, etc). In that order, or something like it.

[razgarcia]

Before I discovered LC eating I would have to eat less than 1,500 Kcal/day to lose weight. If I keep my ECC < 30 per day I find I can lose weight on 2,000 Kcal/day.

But as Max said, it depends on how much weight I have left to lose. When I weighed 220 lbs I could lose weight at a rate of nearly 1-2 lbs/week. Now that I'm at 177 lbs (aiming for 165 lbs), I find that weight loss has slowed to about 0.5 lbs per week (same--ECC < 30 per day I find I can lose weight on 2,000 Kcal/day).

Bummer!

[mcsblues]

Gary Taubes exaggerates (and again I'd have to ask why? - as it detracts from the persuasive power of his argument) Richard Feinman answers the question and Mike avoids it - but the bottom line answer is yes, and I'd say 50% (who can't) would be pretty optimistic too (for men or women) - either way, the same process is set in motion (excess calories being stored even while insulin levels are relatively low).

[petra65]

I'm starting to wonder if I need to eat more calories. All you guys talking about eating >2000 calories a day. I've been pretty adverse to that idea but maybe I need to try it for a week or two and see what happens.

[Mitra]

Mary, not everybody eats that many calories: did you see the blog last year from Dr Mike on Low Carb and Calories (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/low-carb-and-calories/). He says that a typical day's food for him is around 1750. Masses of calories aren't for everybody.

Malcolm, I re-read GCBC, and was struck that Taubes repeatedly refers to problems arising when populations move towards eating lots of "highly processed" carbs. Some of the groups he referred to, and certainly several of the groups Weston Price reported on, had a significant portion of their calories as carbs. Even the dreaded grains! People seem to focus only on the example of the Inuit, and (encouraged by Taubes) just latch on to the "carbs are bad" message.

Another thing that I seem to remember, though of course I can't find it now, was that even though low carb diets did better than others for weight loss in overweight patients, there didn't seem to be any diet on which all the subjects lost weight. I don't know whether switching people around between the various approaches would identify something that works for each person, or if some are so resistant to weight loss that it's very hard to find anything that works. Or maybe there's some other problem like allergies or thyroid, or whatever that needs to be fixed first. The thing I noted was just that even in the studies that support it, LC isn't found to be a magic cure for everybody.

[mcsblues]

Yes, but we aren't talking about weight loss here (the point Mike misses as well). The OT and Feinman's response relate to weight gain while carb intake is restricted - sure the differences that impact on the ease of weight loss may also impact on weight gain, but messages such as 'the less carbs you eat the leaner you will be', or (indirect) encouragement to eat "enormous portions" (and still maintain weight loss) are ... well not really exaggerations, they are just plain wrong for a significant number (if not the majority) of people.

Weight loss really isn't the issue - you can lose weight by all manner of methods including just ceasing to eat at all for a while - true, there will be issues relating to how each method affects your health, and how easy it is to comply with the rules, but much more important is what needs to be done to maintain that loss, and 'exaggerating' or side stepping the key issues is less than helpful.

[Mitra]

You're right that the weight gain question is rarely addressed, and often fudged. Thinking about it, the only examples that come to mind from the books I've read are someone in Life Without Bread who was underweight and only able to get up to normal weight by reducing carbs, and Stefansson's reference to the Eskimos, "They may be well fleshed. Some especially women, are notably heavier in middle age than when young. But they are not corpulent in our sense." Neither is talking about weight gain up to overweight/obese levels, though they do illustrate that weight can go up while eating LC.

My own experience is that I can gain weight even while eating low carb, if my calories are too high - my threshold is well below 2000.

[petra65]

My general rule has been less than 1800 calories to lose. I still think that is probably true at least for me.

Malcolm-I'm not sure "the less carbs you eat, the leaner you will be" is completely accurate, but in general, the more you restrict carbs, the faster you will lose weight provided you aren't eating some enormous number of calories. That is part of why Atkins is so popular. It is the most restrictive LC diet and also the one that tends to lead the the quickest weight loss. It is also the one that is probably the hardest to stick with over the long haul. Tradeoffs I suppose. In the original PP, even the Eades suggested that for those who were more overweight (more than 20%), keep their carbs below 30 in the beginning.

[maxlharris]

Atkins is not the most restrictive. Atkins Induction (which is what most people do when they say they are doing Atkins) is the most restrictive of the popular LC diets. When you properly do Atkins Phases 2-4 as described in Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution and Atkins for Life, you increase carbs, up to your critical carb level for loss and your critical carb level for maintenance. I think this part is really confusing for users and really best for people with low grade OCD or other tendencies that would make compulsive logging and charting likely. Most people stick with Induction, which is hard to stick with in the long term if you don't frame it positively.

There is probably a point at which the returns to going to fewer carbs will diminish. I have not looked at scale/food data to see if I can find such a point, but I think my scale tends to trail my food by a day or so anyway, so it'd be very hard to sort if I did. At any rate, it might be that you lose very quickly initially on VLC and that the marginal benefits of each carb removed diminish. Or not. I don't find any greater results when I go shake, steak, steak for meals. But that's very anecdotal and sample of 1. I wouldn't want to submit that for peer review.

[Missy]

I also feel that the general statement of " the more you have to lose the faster it will come off." is untrue for 'all'. I'm living PROOF that that ain't so. It still does it, but it's slow, in my case.

I'm no longer looking at it as how FAST can I get it off...but more of a do what I know I must and what will be will be. I think calories do count. But, I don't expend energy tracking them. I'm not eating out of bounds.

[petra65]

Max-also, all other things being equal, men lose faster than women because they have more LBM. We can't get around that one. There are some things we can do to try to compensate (more exercise) but we can't change our genes.

[maxlharris]

Max-also, all other things being equal, men lose faster than women because they have more LBM. We can't get around that one. There are some things we can do to try to compensate (more exercise) but we can't change our genes.
No doubt about any of that. Not sure quite how we got to this point in the conversation. Was talking about Doing Atkins by the book versus how people Do Atkins Induction and call it Atkins (didn't even mention that people will say they are doing Atkins without exercising, which is covered in DANDR in the chapter "Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable).

Definitely agree men lose faster than women. More LBM. Better hormonal set up when everything is working smoothly. No TOM.

Also agree that there is a genetic component.

Would add that there's probably a system stress element as well. DM2 would be an extreme version of what I would call a system stress element, but I'm pretty sure you can be very metabolically resistant without being diabetic. At least that's my reading.

[deirdra]

One thing not addressed is food allergies/intolerances. If I eat cheeze, dairy proteins, soy &/or gluten (still keeping my net carbs at 30g & 2000 cals per day), I gain until I reach 150-155 lbs and stay there if I continue eating allergens. No amount of extra exercise & cutting calories (even down to 1350) will budge the pounds to below 150. If I cut these foods out, I easily lose down to 135 lbs on 30g net carbs & 2000 cals and stay there effortlessly as long as I avoid the allergens.

I've noticed that many who are gaining or plateauing are often eating quite a bit of cheese, yogurt, protein powder, or wraps etc.. If you have an overpowering attraction to these (or other) foods, it is likely you are sensitive to them.

[Missy]

If I cut these foods out, I easily lose down to 135 lbs on 30g net carbs & 2000 cals and stay there effortlessly as long as I avoid the allergens.

I've noticed that many who are gaining or plateauing are often eating quite a bit of cheese, yogurt, protein powder, or wraps etc.. If you have an overpowering attraction to these (or other) foods, it is likely you are sensitive to them.

hummm.....allergens to whey protein powder...hummm....curious? I'm not 'hooked' on them other then it's just an 'easy' way to get my protein in. Thanks for the thought.