Should I eat less carbs?

135

Replies

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,345 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    ^ Well said. Studies have proven that a ketogenic diet is sub-optimal for high-intensity athletic performance, if for no other reason than for impaired ATP resynthesis:

    7wwuumookzaq.jpg
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    kpsyche wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Wait, are you saying potatoes aren't nutritious?

    Maybe they are, but they're full of evil toxins!

    Acrylamide (a carcinogen)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide#Occurrence_in_food_and_associated_health_risks

    Glycoalkaloids
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Toxicity

    evil

    And look at all the other chemicals in them:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Comparison_to_other_major_staple_foods

    I can't tell if you're being tongue in cheek. Says something about the kinds of people you sometimes see on these boards.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,946 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    i was hoping you or someone else would weigh in...

    i only took a look at a couple of the studies...in the first one the immediate thing i noticed was that while the results were statistically significant at 3 and 6 months - and 12 months, there was NO statistical significance between the results in the low carb and low fat groups....

    That link has been used since like 2014 and I spent the time looking at all 23 studies. Almost all had huge differences between protein intakes. The studies that looking at ab libitum, clearly demonstrated the benefits of low carb. But often, when you are cutting proteins and working on fats, you tend to naturally increase protein. That is because, unless you just add oils, you are generally getting fats + protein. And that is what drives people to be satiated. So what it can tell is this.. if you struggle to eating higher protein, focusing on a low carb diet might be highly beneficial to the individual. Not because carbs are evil, but rather that focusing on getting more fat and less cars, automatically helps drive higher consumption of protein.

    But when you control for protein and calories, that is when you will find nothing is different.

    As was mentioned earlier in the thread in regard to the studies linked.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,142 MFP Moderator
    mmapags wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    i was hoping you or someone else would weigh in...

    i only took a look at a couple of the studies...in the first one the immediate thing i noticed was that while the results were statistically significant at 3 and 6 months - and 12 months, there was NO statistical significance between the results in the low carb and low fat groups....

    That link has been used since like 2014 and I spent the time looking at all 23 studies. Almost all had huge differences between protein intakes. The studies that looking at ab libitum, clearly demonstrated the benefits of low carb. But often, when you are cutting proteins and working on fats, you tend to naturally increase protein. That is because, unless you just add oils, you are generally getting fats + protein. And that is what drives people to be satiated. So what it can tell is this.. if you struggle to eating higher protein, focusing on a low carb diet might be highly beneficial to the individual. Not because carbs are evil, but rather that focusing on getting more fat and less cars, automatically helps drive higher consumption of protein.

    But when you control for protein and calories, that is when you will find nothing is different.

    As was mentioned earlier in the thread in regard to the studies linked.

    Yep. Just reinforcing the point.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2018
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
    Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
    Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!

    Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.


    Straw man much?

    I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!

    If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!

    You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.



    No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.

    And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.

    Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!

    I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!

    I’m not sure what your point is?

    Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.

    But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.

    I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?

    Like I asked, straw man much?

    Pretty much no one in this discussion is going to be too low on protein or fat for health given food availability. Things that take a bit more effort to have in satisfactory levels are omega 3 fats and micronutrients. Bacon and bulletproof coffee aren't useful for that. So going on about carbs being non essential is the strawman.

    There are no single necessary sources of nutrients, so if one wants to be low carb (but makes an effort to get in a good variety of vegetables) or if one wants to be high carb plant based but similarly watches nutrients (and supplements a couple of things), then one is fine. It's probably easiest if one decides to eat a balanced varied diet with mostly plant based foods (lots of veg and fruit) and some fatty fish as the base of their diet, but then that has zero to do with cutting carbs at all.