Low carb or low fat – which diet is the right one??
Who would like to decrease successfully, should eat healthy as well as less and drive more sport, that stands to reason. Many people try to reinforce this effect with a diet plan and opt for either low carb or low fat.
The reason for this dichotomy is that the human metabolism is also a dichotomous one. Humans get their energy either by the fat metabolism or by the glucose metabolism.
The third macronutrient protein can only be converted into energy in times of need. It is more responsible for body and muscle building.
Advantages and disadvantages of both diets
Both low carb and low fat have their advantages and disadvantages. For both diets there are numerous recipes for losing weight. Which weight loss concept is the better one has recently been determined in studies.
We light up both concepts for removing as well as their backgrounds and present the results of the studies. Material on the subject of losing weight can also be found on .
The background of low carb
Low Carb stands for little sugar and is based on the idea to accustom humans again to tap the Ketose and thus the “hunger metabolism” of humans. This corresponds rather to the construction plan of humans, who knew in pre-civilization times much fat and proteins, but only little sugar.
Supporters of low carb point out that products with a high sugar content hardly make you really full, but rather increase your appetite. The rapid transport of sugar molecules via the hormone insulin also leads to a new feeling of hunger being created quickly.
This is the background for the notorious sugar cravings. The fact that sugar does this by docking with the reward system in the brain, the dopamine receptors, doesn’t make things any better.
Also, the satiety effect from sugar never lasts long. Particularly treacherous are thereby the simple and double sugars, because these are particularly fast utilized by the metabolism.
For example, those who resort a lot to burgers, potato chips, pieces of cake, chocolate, sweets, cola and fruit juices, tend to view the diet as a pastime and also to consume far beyond the feeling of satiety at the expense of their blood sugar levels.
The background to Low Fat
Who announces the fight with Low Fat against the fats however, refers to the fact that fats are by far the most calorie-containing macronutrients. Thus, one gram of fat contains nine kilocalories, while the calorie intake of carbohydrates and proteins seems downright moderate at four kilocalories each. Who is a follower of Low Fat, is thus rather the type calorie counter.
Another argument in favor of low fat is that the change in diet is less difficult, because sugar alone is present in daily bread, as well as in potatoes, rice, pasta and other foods. is omnipresent in the usual diet plan.
After all, low fat is good at lowering cholesterol and blood fat levels. As with simple and branched carbohydrates, there are also “good” and “bad” fats. For example, experts recommend that for every one saturated fatty acid, there should be at least two unsaturated fatty acids.
For every one omega-3 fatty acid, there should be five omega-6 fatty acids. In reality, however, the ratio in the West is an unfavorable 8:1.
What do the studies say about the diets?
The comparison of low carb and low fat is a popular study topic. The result of a study in New Orleans in 2014 caused a sensation. There 148 people with a body weight of over 100 kg were divided into two groups.
Half ate for a year according to the ideas of Low Carb and the other according to the ideas of Low Fat. The subjects were also encouraged to eat no more than 1.400 calories per day.
In the end, the low carb participants were able to enjoy a 5.3 kg reduction in their body weight, while the low fat group only achieved an average weight loss of 1.8 kg.
However, the low carb participants reported that the diet was more difficult for them.
Less clear is the result of a study by Stanford University in California in 2018. Once again, many overweight people (609) were divided into two groups and followed either the low carb or low fat diet for one year. Here, the benefits of low carb were only razor-thin, with a weight loss of 6.0 kg compared to 5.3 kg.
Another interesting aspect of the results is that they refute the researchers’ hypothesis that the gene profile determined is a significant indicator of the success of a particular diet. For this purpose, certain gene types were determined in the test subjects prior to the study.
Surprising was finally the range with the success of the individual participants. While some participants were able to lose almost 30 kg, others even gained almost 10 kg.
The conclusion of Prof. Christian Gardner: The most successful subjects were those who followed the diet consciously and paid close attention to what they ate during the diet. Perhaps the motivation for one of the diets is more important than the question of the concept.
