Carbs after lunch?

Hello, I've lost 20.5 lbs with myfitnesspal! I've done a lot of trial and error during this time period and worked to overcome many plateaus. I've noticed that I seem to loose more weight when I do not eat carbs after lunch. Is this strategy working for anyone else? Is there any science behind this? If I am eating the same amount of calories, why does it matter if they are carbs vs. proteins or what time I eat them?

Find more posts tagged with

Replies

carmel224466 wrote: »

Hello, I've lost 20.5 lbs with myfitnesspal! I've done a lot of trial and error during this time period and worked to overcome many plateaus. I've noticed that I seem to loose more weight when I do not eat carbs after lunch. Is this strategy working for anyone else? Is there any science behind this? If I am eating the same amount of calories, why does it matter if they are carbs vs. proteins or what time I eat them?

When you say you lose more weight, what do you mean?

That you see a loss the very next day? That you have zero carbs after lunch for an extended period of time and lose more weight?

carmel224466 wrote: »

If I am eating the same amount of calories, why does it matter if they are carbs vs. proteins or what time I eat them?

It doesn't in the context of fat gain/loss which is what weight loss is all about.

carmel224466 wrote: »

Hello, I've lost 20.5 lbs with myfitnesspal! I've done a lot of trial and error during this time period and worked to overcome many plateaus. I've noticed that I seem to loose more weight when I do not eat carbs after lunch. Is this strategy working for anyone else? Is there any science behind this? If I am eating the same amount of calories, why does it matter if they are carbs vs. proteins or what time I eat them?

Calories are first and foremost. Macros can affect weight on the scale/shape in a couple of ways, however. Sufficient protein will mean that more of the weight lost will be fat versus muscle mass. Carbs also have an effect where you retain more water with more carbs. So, people who reduce carbs will often see a reduction in water weight. It doesn't mean you've actually lost more fat, however, and when you increase carbs you'll see water weight come back up.

Generally speaking, just focus on the calories. Over time, you will see weight loss with the right amount of calories. Try to get enough protein. You can try out different carb ratios to see how you feel on them (not for weight loss but for energy, sustainability of diet, etc.)

I mean that I loose weight more quickly when I don't eat carbs after lunch. It could be the difference between a half of a pound per week vs 3 and a half pounds.

carmel224466 wrote: »

Hello, I've lost 20.5 lbs with myfitnesspal! I've done a lot of trial and error during this time period and worked to overcome many plateaus. I've noticed that I seem to loose more weight when I do not eat carbs after lunch. Is this strategy working for anyone else? Is there any science behind this? If I am eating the same amount of calories, why does it matter if they are carbs vs. proteins or what time I eat them?

If you are weighing daily (which is kind of what I'm getting from your post), I'm guessing what your seeing is less water retention. Carbs later in the day tend to make you retain more water, especially if you weigh first thing the next morning.
Otherwise, this really shouldn't matter, unless you are eating a larger deficit by not eating those carbs, which does happen for some people.
As long as you maintain a calorie deficit, it shouldn't matter what time you eat what foods.

It's also one of Bob Haper's rules for weight loss?

Just guessing could be totally wrong but perhaps water weight....

carmel224466 wrote: »

I mean that I loose weight more quickly when I don't eat carbs after lunch. It could be the difference between a half of a pound per week vs 3 and a half pounds.

Because you're eating less carbs in general...it has nothing to do with the timing. When you consumes less carbs, you retain less fluid. You aren't losing any more fat...the scale goes down faster because you're retaining less fluid. This is why low carbers get all excited the first few weeks of dieting...the scale drops like crazy because they are retaining less fluid and depleting glycogen.

You'd have to be morbidly obese to lose 3 Lbs+ of actual fat in a week.

carmel224466 wrote: »

I mean that I loose weight more quickly when I don't eat carbs after lunch. It could be the difference between a half of a pound per week vs 3 and a half pounds.

Not knowing how much weight you have to lose - but it's unlikely that you are losing 3 1/2 lbs one week and 1/2 lb the next, if you are maintaining the same deficit. It's water weight. Remember, you have to have a deficit of 3,500 calories per week to lose one pound.

carmel224466 wrote: »

I mean that I loose weight more quickly when I don't eat carbs after lunch. It could be the difference between a half of a pound per week vs 3 and a half pounds.

how do you know this?

carb timing has nothing to do with weight loss.

carmel224466 wrote: »

It's also one of Bob Haper's rules for weight loss?

calorie deficit is the only rule for weight loss.

If it's working for you then keep doing it.

I agree the the OP. I dropped 30 pounds last fall with this same approach. I did no carbs after 2pm. The only carbs I would allow were dark leafy, kale, chard, greens, and Brussel sprouts. The results I gathered came from the reduction of insulin spikes caused by the carbs and their conversion to glucose. In a carb depleted state my body would use fat stores as energy. It worked for my body, glad to he someone else preaching it worked for them.

Thanks JSurita. I am and always have been a huge believer in calorie counting. I know that 3,500 cals= a pound and approach weight loss as simple math. I mathematically would calculate my calorie defect and exercise calories and still NEVER loose what I should on the scale. At times I would loose nothing. It is not until I have cut carbs at night (while still maintaining the same amount of daily calories) that I am significantly loosing weight. I know carbs carry water but I keep dropping so I can't imagine it's all water. I was just wondering if anyone else was having positive results with this strategy?

wesaud wrote: »

I agree the the OP. I dropped 30 pounds last fall with this same approach. I did no carbs after 2pm. The only carbs I would allow were dark leafy, kale, chard, greens, and Brussel sprouts. The results I gathered came from the reduction of insulin spikes caused by the carbs and their conversion to glucose. In a carb depleted state my body would use fat stores as energy. It worked for my body, glad to he someone else preaching it worked for them.

LOL, why don't you run a little experiment on yourself. Eat no carbs after two pm, but eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus, and report back with what happens. I will go with 100% certainty that you gain weight.

carmel224466 wrote: »

Thanks JSurita. I am and always have been a huge believer in calorie counting. I know that 3,500 cals= a pound and approach weight loss as simple math. I mathematically would calculate my calorie defect and exercise calories and still NEVER loose what I should on the scale. At times I would loose nothing. It is not until I have cut carbs at night (while still maintaining the same amount of daily calories) that I am significantly loosing weight. I know carbs carry water but I keep dropping so I can't imagine it's all water. I was just wondering if anyone else was having positive results with this strategy?

sorry, but you do not defy the laws of physics and math.

if you are not eating carbs after 2pm and losing weight it just means that you are creating a calorie deficit, and that is why you are losing weight. Carbs after a certain time period has nothing to do with it.

When scientists measure the calories in food what they do is dry out out completely in an oven and then burn it in an oxygen atmosphere and measure how much heat it produces.

However this is not how your body digest foods, it is much more complex than that. You can't get MORE calories out of the food, but you can get less.

Your digestive system detects when food is present, and then release enzymes to break it down. It evolved for a mixed diet of fat, protein and carbs and it works very efficiently for that.

However they way it detects "food" is to detect carbs, so when carbs are present in food it releases enzymes, including those that break down fat. If you don't have carbs in your meal then much less of the fat enzymes are released and you absorb less of the calories from the fat. It takes a few hours for the fat enzymes to stop working.

So if your evening meal calories are coming from fat and protein, with less carbs, you'll absorb less of the energy from the fat in that meal. This is how low carb diets work.

It doesn't take many carbs to turn on the fat enzyme production, the odd cookie (biscuit) can undo any benefit.

Fat and Protein also make you less hungry.

So eating carbs and protein for half the day, and protein and fat for the other half can mean you absorb less of the calories in the food overall. But you must have a gap of about 5 hours between the 2 sets of meals for it to work.

ndj1979 wrote: »

carmel224466 wrote: »

Thanks JSurita. I am and always have been a huge believer in calorie counting. I know that 3,500 cals= a pound and approach weight loss as simple math. I mathematically would calculate my calorie defect and exercise calories and still NEVER loose what I should on the scale. At times I would loose nothing. It is not until I have cut carbs at night (while still maintaining the same amount of daily calories) that I am significantly loosing weight. I know carbs carry water but I keep dropping so I can't imagine it's all water. I was just wondering if anyone else was having positive results with this strategy?

sorry, but you do not defy the laws of physics and math.

if you are not eating carbs after 2pm and losing weight it just means that you are creating a calorie deficit, and that is why you are losing weight. Carbs after a certain time period has nothing to do with it.

I don't think they are hearing this.

ChrisManch wrote: »

When scientists measure the calories in food what they do is dry out out completely in an oven and then burn it in an oxygen atmosphere and measure how much heat it produces.

However this is not how your body digest foods, it is much more complex than that. You can't get MORE calories out of the food, but you can get less.

Your digestive system detects when food is present, and then release enzymes to break it down. It evolved for a mixed diet of fat, protein and carbs and it works very efficiently for that.

However they way it detects "food" is to detect carbs, so when carbs are present in food it releases enzymes, including those that break down fat. If you don't have carbs in your meal then much less of the fat enzymes are released and you absorb less of the calories from the fat. It takes a few hours for the fat enzymes to stop working.

So if your evening meal calories are coming from fat and protein, with less carbs, you'll absorb less of the energy from the fat in that meal. This is how low carb diets work.

It doesn't take many carbs to turn on the fat enzyme production, the odd cookie (biscuit) can undo any benefit.

Fat and Protein also make you less hungry.

So eating carbs and protein for half the day, and protein and fat for the other half can mean you absorb less of the calories in the food overall. But you must have a gap of about 5 hours between the 2 sets of meals for it to work.

complete and utter nonsense...

carmel224466 wrote: »

Thanks JSurita. I am and always have been a huge believer in calorie counting. I know that 3,500 cals= a pound and approach weight loss as simple math. I mathematically would calculate my calorie defect and exercise calories and still NEVER loose what I should on the scale. At times I would loose nothing. It is not until I have cut carbs at night (while still maintaining the same amount of daily calories) that I am significantly loosing weight. I know carbs carry water but I keep dropping so I can't imagine it's all water. I was just wondering if anyone else was having positive results with this strategy?

so you're going to ignore what everyone is telling you and just go along with the 'hey, positivity!' message? that's not reality. The reality is, when you see a difference between one week and the next, you're seeing water weight on weeks when you are avoiding carbs. Or you are eating far fewer calories when you are not eating the carbs.

Quick Links