Against my better judgement, I'm going to get involved here. Calories obviously play an role. It has never been proven that there is any "Metabolic Advantage" by eating low carbs over and above the obvious differences in processing the different meganutrients. What is irrelevant is counting calories. Hormones control your appetite. It is clear that when people start eating low-carb based on real natural food, they consume less calories but feel full. They don't have to consciously cut calories. However, calories alone don't explain the body fat shift that they experience. Most people will also experience a body fat percentage reduction, where a person simply restricting carbs will usually lose muscle along with the fat. Higher protein obviously plays a role in this. Saturated fats also play a role in reducing abdominal fat as long as the liver is not beyond repair.
This is pretty close to the point I was trying to make - I just feel like you, Ironman, as well as a lot of people on this forum constantly talk negatively about insulin/carbohydrates.
I'm not here to argue, I honestly don't know the fine details of nutrient usage - I'm just getting tired of hearing the one sided "FAT IS GOOD, CARBS ARE BAD" type of attitude on these forums. There is an obvious bias towards paleo/keto type eating habits here.
I'd also like to say your original statement about 'what works for nightfall' felt like somewhat of an 'attack'(can't think of a better word) on me, Ironman - as though I had some kind of superior genetics that allowed me to lose fat easily and as such my info should be disregarded.
Considering three years ago I was morbidly obese at 300+lbs at 5'9", not only would I say my genetics are not those of a lean person - but that I'm probably extremely insulin resistant.
Well you said it works for you. I was just making the point that maybe it does work for you, but it doesn't work for a lot of people.
I think you are getting me mixed up with other people. I don't say anything is good or bad. Those are utterly useless subjective terms. I don't put anything so crudely, or in black and white terms. In all of nutrition carbs vary far more than any other factor when comparing different goals and different people.
All I'm doing is disagreeing with your assertion that calories (as in what is on the label of the food you eat), is all that matters.
I'm saying that manipulating hormones is a big factor. Let me put it this way. A person can be gaining weight even though they are not overeating. They would be in a deficit if they were not storing some of the food as fat, which in turn down regulates metabolism. It makes them expend very little energy. This is because they are expending all the energy they have but some of it is being leached away into fat stores.
So then the person switches to low carb which suppresses the hormone storing the fat and stimulates another that mobilizes it. So then the person doesn't just go back to the original metabolic rate, it actually goes a little higher, there is more energy to burn because more is available for use due to fat mobilization.
So there is an energy balance, but what is on the food label may be misleading. It also doesn't account for the hormones causing you to store or use the energy. There is also the factor of how long it takes to digest something. Anything you don't use will get stored as fat. So the fast vs slow can be a factor.
That's just one example though. I just object to people acting like your body is a box and you can just put things in and take them out and it's all simple and everyone is the same.
So hopefully that is understandable without be too simplistic.