To carb or not to carb?
Options
Replies
-
Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.
He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.
Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"1 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Nice to see you. Will watch!Hello_its_Dan wrote: »This is an excellent podcast interview for anyone wondering if they should cut carbs or not.
Enjoy!
https://sigmanutrition.com/episode165/
SNR #165: Kevin Hall, PhD – Testing the Carbohydrate-Insulin Model & a Response to Gary Taubes
Thanks! Nice to be back! I needed a little break!0 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.
He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.
Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"
I found it fascinating that KH doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie in the conventional sense that different macro's drive different energenic responses.0 -
Balance carbs with exercise. That was Atkins' advice.0
-
For the love of pizza, ice cream and fruit I will never low carb.
I don't under stand why people feel the need to unless their health means they have no choice.1 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.
He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.
Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"
I found it fascinating that KH doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie in the conventional sense that different macro's drive different energenic responses.
I mean, that is true, but unless one or other of those pathways is grossly inefficient, the body is still going to extract most of the energy avaliable regardless of which macro it came from - so the effect on the body (in terms of activity sustained or fat burned or stored) of 200 calories of carbs or 200 calories of fat is not going to be much different.
It's like running a hybrid on all-petrol or all-electricity - the power needed to drive the car is the same, regardless of the very different methods used to produce that power. And 200kW of electricity is equivalent to 200kW of output from a combustion engine. The only difference in practice is efficency - and the human body is extremely efficient at converting energy from any source.1 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.
He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.
Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"
I found it fascinating that KH doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie in the conventional sense that different macro's drive different energenic responses.
Elaborate0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.
He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.
Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"
I found it fascinating that KH doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie in the conventional sense that different macro's drive different energenic responses.
I mean, that is true, but unless one or other of those pathways is grossly inefficient, the body is still going to extract most of the energy avaliable regardless of which macro it came from - so the effect on the body (in terms of activity sustained or fat burned or stored) of 200 calories of carbs or 200 calories of fat is not going to be much different.
It's like running a hybrid on all-petrol or all-electricity - the power needed to drive the car is the same, regardless of the very different methods used to produce that power. And 200kW of electricity is equivalent to 200kW of output from a combustion engine. The only difference in practice is efficency - and the human body is extremely efficient at converting energy from any source.
I know. It's not highly different between fat and carbs... protein though....0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.
He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.
Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"
I found it fascinating that KH doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie in the conventional sense that different macro's drive different energenic responses.
I mean, that is true, but unless one or other of those pathways is grossly inefficient, the body is still going to extract most of the energy avaliable regardless of which macro it came from - so the effect on the body (in terms of activity sustained or fat burned or stored) of 200 calories of carbs or 200 calories of fat is not going to be much different.
It's like running a hybrid on all-petrol or all-electricity - the power needed to drive the car is the same, regardless of the very different methods used to produce that power. And 200kW of electricity is equivalent to 200kW of output from a combustion engine. The only difference in practice is efficency - and the human body is extremely efficient at converting energy from any source.
I know. It's not highly different between fat and carbs... protein though....
Protein has a calorie count of 5.68 per gram. We only absorb about 4.0 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Hello_its_Dan wrote: »Just listened to this.. And man that is some really good stuff. I think some of the content will go against a lot of what people conventionally think.
He's been known to go round for round with Gary Taubes just like Alan Aragon.
Here's the thing we need to remember: Nutritional science is still in its infancy.
100 years from now people are going to look back and think "I can't believe they used to think that about _______!"
I found it fascinating that KH doesn't believe a calorie is a calorie in the conventional sense that different macro's drive different energenic responses.
Elaborate
He mentioned that he agreed with Taubes on a lot of points. In some regard, that a calorie is not really calorie in the conventional sense, that if you had isocaloric studies, that macros would have no impact on weight and/fat loss, as it's been shown that higher protein studies tend to be superior. So while a calorie is a calories in terms of unit of measure (my words), not all macros splits would produce the same results (especially short term). He also noted that LCHF studies tend to show (at least in free living conditions) greater fat and weight loss short term.
I think this was around the 40th min. I do plan on listening again, to ensure I understood that correctly.1 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »
It's very interesting stuff. And I do recognize what he found in his first experiment. So it will definitely be interesting to see how things play out over the next few years. But IMO, it doesn't matter how effective or beneficial a diet is, if you can't sustain it. I low carb 3 days a week and those are tough days for me. My high carb days are much more beneficial. So compliance/adherence are definitely # 1.2 -
Hello_its_Dan wrote: »
It's very interesting stuff. And I do recognize what he found in his first experiment. So it will definitely be interesting to see how things play out over the next few years. But IMO, it doesn't matter how effective or beneficial a diet is, if you can't sustain it. I low carb 3 days a week and those are tough days for me. My high carb days are much more beneficial. So compliance/adherence are definitely # 1.Hello_its_Dan wrote: »
It's very interesting stuff. And I do recognize what he found in his first experiment. So it will definitely be interesting to see how things play out over the next few years. But IMO, it doesn't matter how effective or beneficial a diet is, if you can't sustain it. I low carb 3 days a week and those are tough days for me. My high carb days are much more beneficial. So compliance/adherence are definitely # 1.
Consistency over time!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions