Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What a lot of us here already know: "Fast" carbs don't make you fat!
Options
Replies
-
More than likely.1
-
neanderthin wrote: »More than likely.
Any chance you could copy paste the conclusion sections?
I understand if you can’t.0 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »More than likely.
Any chance you could copy paste the conclusion sections?
I understand if you can’t.
Only have access to the Abstract. It explains the results.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It amazes me that grants or getting paid for this kind of study is still around. The Barnum & Bailey effect in full bloom.
There is value in applying rigorous scientific methodology to testing out "common sense" ideas that "everyone knows." Sometimes folk wisdom is just flat-out wrong, or broadly right but for the wrong reasons.
I sure your right but I'll continue to think based on current science that it's calories and it's overconsumption that makes people gain weight, but who knows it might be individual foods like fast carbs.
She isn't saying it's not calories. She's saying good science involves testing 'common knowledge' things that have never been put to the test.
That is accurate.
Because sometimes common sense is right and sometimes we drew a wrong conclusion, and either way having scientific evidence of that is useful to us.
Yes, thank you.
I like science. I'm what some might call a nutritional nerd and have been doing my own research since the late 90's, so I agree science and testing hypothesis is crucial. The comparison between simple and complex carbs effects have been researched to death. This article even mentions 34 previous studies that came to the same conclusion. I give the researchers of this study credit for getting paid for something that has ben done over and over again and to no surprise they came to the same conclusion.
I actually do give them credit for that. Doing one study and thinking something has been "proved" isn't good science, but all one seems to be able to find are novel studies -- no one seems to want to (or be able to get funding to) see if they can replicate a previous study's findings.5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It amazes me that grants or getting paid for this kind of study is still around. The Barnum & Bailey effect in full bloom.
There is value in applying rigorous scientific methodology to testing out "common sense" ideas that "everyone knows." Sometimes folk wisdom is just flat-out wrong, or broadly right but for the wrong reasons.
I sure your right but I'll continue to think based on current science that it's calories and it's overconsumption that makes people gain weight, but who knows it might be individual foods like fast carbs.
She isn't saying it's not calories. She's saying good science involves testing 'common knowledge' things that have never been put to the test.
That is accurate.
Because sometimes common sense is right and sometimes we drew a wrong conclusion, and either way having scientific evidence of that is useful to us.
Yes, thank you.
I like science. I'm what some might call a nutritional nerd and have been doing my own research since the late 90's, so I agree science and testing hypothesis is crucial. The comparison between simple and complex carbs effects have been researched to death. This article even mentions 34 previous studies that came to the same conclusion. I give the researchers of this study credit for getting paid for something that has ben done over and over again and to no surprise they came to the same conclusion.
I actually do give them credit for that. Doing one study and thinking something has been "proved" isn't good science, but all one seems to be able to find are novel studies -- no one seems to want to (or be able to get funding to) see if they can replicate a previous study's findings.
Funding is very political, do or say the wrong thing and your see ya later.3 -
Well in that case yes if it is. It's pretty black and white if nutrient value is higher whether fortified or not.
Well since most processed foods end up stripping nutrients, you MAY NOT find any process foods that aren't fortified. So the search for those could be in vain. But again, I think the whole point of nutrients in food is what is offered to you whether fortified or not.
The body doesn't distinguish whether a food is fortified or not, so really wouldn't the biggest concern be what you're really getting from a food when you compare it with something similar?kshama2001 wrote: »I realized in 2004 that I preferred white rice and felt guilty about abandoning brown rice for a long time, but no more!
I believe I first saw this graphic here on MFP:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/
I can easily make up that 1 g of protein and fiber elsewhere. Actually, as I type this I am eating cottage cheese and blueberries, so check
How is possible that white rice has vitamin C and brown rice doesn’t? That’s odd.
Rice doesn't have vit C, but lots of white rice is fortified, so maybe it was added.
I like brown rice better (I'm not that into rice anyway in that I think it works well with some food and is fine but I could easily live without it, but think if one must choose brown is tastier), but I don't think either is really better from a nutritional perspective. One can likely get nutrients more easily from fortified white rice than brown, and it's not like I find brown rice super filling -- it's way more about the protein and veg one eats with the rice.
That's what I was thinking too - but if that is the case then I think that showing a nutritional comparison between a fortified and non-fortified food item is a bit disingenuous. I mean it probably doesn't matter but it would make me question the rest of the comparatives as well (if I was interested in choosing rice with the best nutritional profile which personally I am not).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
My point is that any food can be high in nutrients if you add them to it. I would think the whole point of comparing two foods side by side would be to do a comparison of the nutrients that are inherent in those foods.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
OK - so if I buy protein fortified almond milk then I can claim that almond milk is higher protein than soy milk?
Well I think the POINT was that "fast carbs" like white rice when compared to brown rice (whether the white rice is fortified or not) hardly makes a difference nutrient wise. And more people prefer white over brown so they DON'T have to fret that they are getting the lower end because the nutrient value between the 2 is pretty minimal. So now they can eat that white rice and feel good about it at the same time. I think that's what the point basically was.I mean sure maybe most white rice is fortified - that wasn't really the point of the post - it was a comparison between the two of them which to me would imply a comparison between their inherent nutritional profile. I mean the claim was that white rice is fairly comparable nutritionally to brown rice, if they have to add nutrients into because they "end up stripping" them out, then that claim is disingenuous, imo.
But honestly I don't care to argue about it, it was just an observation that I made looking at the comparative which made me curious, I honestly don't care that much about it to keep discussing it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
7 -
Well in that case yes if it is. It's pretty black and white if nutrient value is higher whether fortified or not.
Well since most processed foods end up stripping nutrients, you MAY NOT find any process foods that aren't fortified. So the search for those could be in vain. But again, I think the whole point of nutrients in food is what is offered to you whether fortified or not.
The body doesn't distinguish whether a food is fortified or not, so really wouldn't the biggest concern be what you're really getting from a food when you compare it with something similar?kshama2001 wrote: »I realized in 2004 that I preferred white rice and felt guilty about abandoning brown rice for a long time, but no more!
I believe I first saw this graphic here on MFP:
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/brown-rice-vs-white-rice/
I can easily make up that 1 g of protein and fiber elsewhere. Actually, as I type this I am eating cottage cheese and blueberries, so check
How is possible that white rice has vitamin C and brown rice doesn’t? That’s odd.
Rice doesn't have vit C, but lots of white rice is fortified, so maybe it was added.
I like brown rice better (I'm not that into rice anyway in that I think it works well with some food and is fine but I could easily live without it, but think if one must choose brown is tastier), but I don't think either is really better from a nutritional perspective. One can likely get nutrients more easily from fortified white rice than brown, and it's not like I find brown rice super filling -- it's way more about the protein and veg one eats with the rice.
That's what I was thinking too - but if that is the case then I think that showing a nutritional comparison between a fortified and non-fortified food item is a bit disingenuous. I mean it probably doesn't matter but it would make me question the rest of the comparatives as well (if I was interested in choosing rice with the best nutritional profile which personally I am not).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
My point is that any food can be high in nutrients if you add them to it. I would think the whole point of comparing two foods side by side would be to do a comparison of the nutrients that are inherent in those foods.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
OK - so if I buy protein fortified almond milk then I can claim that almond milk is higher protein than soy milk?
Well I think the POINT was that "fast carbs" like white rice when compared to brown rice (whether the white rice is fortified or not) hardly makes a difference nutrient wise. And more people prefer white over brown so they DON'T have to fret that they are getting the lower end because the nutrient value between the 2 is pretty minimal. So now they can eat that white rice and feel good about it at the same time. I think that's what the point basically was.I mean sure maybe most white rice is fortified - that wasn't really the point of the post - it was a comparison between the two of them which to me would imply a comparison between their inherent nutritional profile. I mean the claim was that white rice is fairly comparable nutritionally to brown rice, if they have to add nutrients into because they "end up stripping" them out, then that claim is disingenuous, imo.
But honestly I don't care to argue about it, it was just an observation that I made looking at the comparative which made me curious, I honestly don't care that much about it to keep discussing it.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
For sure. As well most people don't just eat white rice. More than likely they'll have some kind of protein and a vegetable with both of those adding to the meals nutrition as well as slowing the absorption of those "fast" carbs.4 -
Fun with numbers for fast carbs.....
My fastest carbs in my diet are sports energy drinks while cycling.
A moderate intensity ride would see me burning c. 500 net cals/hour, roughly half coming from carbs and half from fat.
Drinking 60g of glucose or glucose/fructose mix sports drinks an hour would see me replacing most of the carbs burned but still still losing 260 cals / 29g of fat per hour.
Q.E.D. - Fast carbs are a fat loss friend.
(Not really! But they do allow me to cycle for hours and hours and hours......)3 -
neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.
Thank you, if you have time I'd be interested in learning more.
Another interesting thing I remember was as the diets went longer into the trials the differences disappeared with generally the conclusion being that low carb is not a long term solution to weight loss and for some reason that conclusion was important or the point of the study. When the studies were examined all these studies showed that compliance was the problem. After 3 months general commitment on both sides start to wane and near the end of pretty much all these trials neither were low fat or low carb, just though I'd mention that.
Yeah, I feel like from reading this is one problem about gathering information about the long term implications of many diets -- most people just aren't going to stick with any "special" eating style that long.
One of the constant changes when carbohydrates are restricted, which generally means an increase in protein and or fat is that blood triglycerides drop and HDL increases, this is not disputed. I'm going to presume that you know this and if not I can elaborate. The first link talks about the effect of short-term low- and high-fat diets on low-density lipoprotein particle size in normolipidemic subjects. What's interesting in this study is that the low carb diet consists of 37% of energy from fat and 50% of energy from carbohydrates and low fat diet consists of 25% fat and 62% of energy from carbohydrates.
While this study was only 3 days the study's intention was to show the immediate changes in lipoprotein particle sizes. Plasma triglycerides and fasting apolipoprotein B were significantly decreased. Pattern B which is another name given are the sdLDL particles which are considered highly atherogenic. LDL cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were significantly increased. Now this is where the confusion starts . Because it's been repeated over and over again for decades that an increase in LDL leads to an increase in heart disease so therefore consuming animal protein which increases LDL, therefore increases the chances for atherosclerosis. Sounds logical but nobody has been able to prove it and this study is basically why they won't. The high-fat diet was also associated with a significant increase in LDL particle size and a significant decrease in the proportion of small LDL particle. Basically a lipoprotein is filled with triglycerides, fat soluble vitamins like E and CoQ10 for example and of course cholesterol. As stated plasma trigs were greatly reduced therefore the lipoprotein had more room for the extra cholesterol which were the "large" LDL particles also called pattern A which has replaced the "small" dense LDL particles which like I said are considered highly atherogenic. This is the main reason consuming animal protein increases both HDL and LDL and set the path that started the low fat era. Getting back to the diets for a second and if you didn't pick up on this I just want to point out that neither of these diets were low carb. The results were only to reflect the change from 62% carbs to 50% carbs. Now to be fair 62% carbs is awful high if were talking a western diet, but I'm not sure what the diets consisted of but never the less this change in lipid profiles over 3 days is quite telling. the second link just basically confirms the first, but these studies are plentiful if one was to look.
Sorry if this is to long but I started typing and couldn't help myself, cheers.
To EDIT: Just wanted to add that when you look at any study and I do mean any that when carbs are reduced in a high carb diet that triglycerides drop and HDL increases regardless even in isocaloric conditions, this study points that out and it's not even low carb but it's pretty much a constant like I said. These are health markers and important ones. This is not saying carbs are bad or a low carb is better. People should be aware that there is a difference when they consider the carbs they eat, whole is better, refined and sugar, not so much.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21816443/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11883-005-0062-9
Thank you, I appreciate you taking all the time to write that out and share your research.2 -
"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
Yeah, I got the "Blue Zones Kitchen" cookbook from my library. It was Nicoya, and it (among all the other places listed) were very heavily plant-based recipes. I haven't looked at all of the recipes, but it seems they're all plant-based with no animal products (a.k.a., carb-heavy). Granted, this cookbook could be written by someone who is very much in favor of plant-based diets and it's possible true Blue Zone diets contain more animal products. In fact, I have a hard time believing no animal products are included in Blue Zone diets. Do they contain less than the traditional Western diet, sure, and probably quite a bit less. But completely absent? Nah.
There are many people in Loma Linda, CA (a blue zone) who don't include animal products in their diet, but it isn't exclusive. Others do eat them.
Loma Linda is 30 minutes from me. Many of the Seventh Day Adventists are vegetarian. I know quite a few of them. One of them is an ER doctor I used to work with. She actually inspired me to go plant based.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.
Thank you, if you have time I'd be interested in learning more.
Another interesting thing I remember was as the diets went longer into the trials the differences disappeared with generally the conclusion being that low carb is not a long term solution to weight loss and for some reason that conclusion was important or the point of the study. When the studies were examined all these studies showed that compliance was the problem. After 3 months general commitment on both sides start to wane and near the end of pretty much all these trials neither were low fat or low carb, just though I'd mention that.
Yeah, I feel like from reading this is one problem about gathering information about the long term implications of many diets -- most people just aren't going to stick with any "special" eating style that long.
One of the constant changes when carbohydrates are restricted, which generally means an increase in protein and or fat is that blood triglycerides drop and HDL increases, this is not disputed. I'm going to presume that you know this and if not I can elaborate. The first link talks about the effect of short-term low- and high-fat diets on low-density lipoprotein particle size in normolipidemic subjects. What's interesting in this study is that the low carb diet consists of 37% of energy from fat and 50% of energy from carbohydrates and low fat diet consists of 25% fat and 62% of energy from carbohydrates.
While this study was only 3 days the study's intention was to show the immediate changes in lipoprotein particle sizes. Plasma triglycerides and fasting apolipoprotein B were significantly decreased. Pattern B which is another name given are the sdLDL particles which are considered highly atherogenic. LDL cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were significantly increased. Now this is where the confusion starts . Because it's been repeated over and over again for decades that an increase in LDL leads to an increase in heart disease so therefore consuming animal protein which increases LDL, therefore increases the chances for atherosclerosis. Sounds logical but nobody has been able to prove it and this study is basically why they won't. The high-fat diet was also associated with a significant increase in LDL particle size and a significant decrease in the proportion of small LDL particle. Basically a lipoprotein is filled with triglycerides, fat soluble vitamins like E and CoQ10 for example and of course cholesterol. As stated plasma trigs were greatly reduced therefore the lipoprotein had more room for the extra cholesterol which were the "large" LDL particles also called pattern A which has replaced the "small" dense LDL particles which like I said are considered highly atherogenic. This is the main reason consuming animal protein increases both HDL and LDL and set the path that started the low fat era. Getting back to the diets for a second and if you didn't pick up on this I just want to point out that neither of these diets were low carb. The results were only to reflect the change from 62% carbs to 50% carbs. Now to be fair 62% carbs is awful high if were talking a western diet, but I'm not sure what the diets consisted of but never the less this change in lipid profiles over 3 days is quite telling. the second link just basically confirms the first, but these studies are plentiful if one was to look.
Sorry if this is to long but I started typing and couldn't help myself, cheers.
To EDIT: Just wanted to add that when you look at any study and I do mean any that when carbs are reduced in a high carb diet that triglycerides drop and HDL increases regardless even in isocaloric conditions, this study points that out and it's not even low carb but it's pretty much a constant like I said. These are health markers and important ones. This is not saying carbs are bad or a low carb is better. People should be aware that there is a difference when they consider the carbs they eat, whole is better, refined and sugar, not so much.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21816443/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11883-005-0062-9
Thank you, I appreciate you taking all the time to write that out and share your research.
Your more than welcome.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.
Thank you, if you have time I'd be interested in learning more.
Another interesting thing I remember was as the diets went longer into the trials the differences disappeared with generally the conclusion being that low carb is not a long term solution to weight loss and for some reason that conclusion was important or the point of the study. When the studies were examined all these studies showed that compliance was the problem. After 3 months general commitment on both sides start to wane and near the end of pretty much all these trials neither were low fat or low carb, just though I'd mention that.
I've read the same studies and agree with what you've been saying.
One other issue is that "low fat" isn't much different than the SAD, which is about 35% fat (they wanted that cut to under 30% in most of the studies), whereas low carb was a huge change -- reducing from around 50-55% to under 10%. It's my view that when you change your diet a lot, initially it can be easy to avoid overeating, since you don't have your standard high cal/low nutrient foods available. That usually changes over time, and also, of course, becomes just harder to sustain.
I also think that low carb can be more filling than SAD, but same with something like WFPB (which is often 80-10-10, so much lower fat than the usual low fat diet in these tests). (That said, 80-10-10 tends to be hard for compliance if not self-selected due in part to ethical or severe health reasons, IMO, and I've seen that reflected in studies too.)3 -
neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/
I can't believe Harvard wrote this considering their ground zero for plant based diets. Anyway there's actually hundreds of studies that show that when carbs and we're talking mostly refined carbs and sugar are reduced in the diet that health markers improve, and significantly in some studies.
Are there studies that look at the impacts of carbohydrate restriction outside of the context of weight loss?
That is, studies where there was no weight loss, but health markers improved? I ask because if people are losing weight it's going to be very hard to determine if it was due to carbohydrate restriction or due to losing weight.
Yes actually quite a few and if I have time I'll post. It can be confusing if one diet is ad lib and the other is in a deficit, no doubt about it. Which actually triggers my memory recalling that most comparisons of a low carb diet vs a low fat diet had the low carb diet was instructed to eat at ad libitum while the low fat was given a calorie restriction, and almost all of the time, given the span and controls involved the low carb diet generally lost more weight and improved health markers.
Thank you, if you have time I'd be interested in learning more.
Another interesting thing I remember was as the diets went longer into the trials the differences disappeared with generally the conclusion being that low carb is not a long term solution to weight loss and for some reason that conclusion was important or the point of the study. When the studies were examined all these studies showed that compliance was the problem. After 3 months general commitment on both sides start to wane and near the end of pretty much all these trials neither were low fat or low carb, just though I'd mention that.
I've read the same studies and agree with what you've been saying.
One other issue is that "low fat" isn't much different than the SAD, which is about 35% fat (they wanted that cut to under 30% in most of the studies), whereas low carb was a huge change -- reducing from around 50-55% to under 10%. It's my view that when you change your diet a lot, initially it can be easy to avoid overeating, since you don't have your standard high cal/low nutrient foods available. That usually changes over time, and also, of course, becomes just harder to sustain.
I also think that low carb can be more filling than SAD, but same with something like WFPB (which is often 80-10-10, so much lower fat than the usual low fat diet in these tests). (That said, 80-10-10 tends to be hard for compliance if not self-selected due in part to ethical or severe health reasons, IMO, and I've seen that reflected in studies too.)
Yeah agreed. Anytime a diet takes to the extremes it gets so difficult to comply. I have almost no knowledge of the WFPB diet, so I can't really comment but I suspect compliance would be an issue for most people as well.3 -
"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.6 -
neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.
Are you saying that whole foods are less likely to cause obesity than refined, or is it that people like the taste better and they're eating more? BTW I agree with your assessment.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.
Are you saying that whole foods are less likely to cause obesity than refined, or is it that people like the taste better and they're eating more? BTW I agree with your assessment.
I can't speak to Costa Rica (it's on my bucket list) but the last time I was in Honduras I noticed a lot more fast food and grocery markets that were once primarily vegetables, grains, meats, dairy, etc had a lot more things like potato chips and other "junk" snacky type of foods than my first time around. Also, soda was always kind of a thing my first go around...especially Fanta. But it was in a smaller glass bottle and made with fruit juice and cane sugar. It was harder to come by my second go around as the markets primarily had 1 Liter bottles of the American stuff.
I think the issue is that a lot of that kind of stuff is high calorie and doesn't really fill you up (and some of it tastes pretty good) so there is a propensity to eat more of it. I could eat several hundred calories worth of potato chips and still be hungry...but 150 calorie baked potato is going to satisfy me pretty good.4 -
neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Then it is likely due to eating more junk food and less of their traditional diet.
BTW, I find compliance with WFPB diet way easier than with low carb. Any diet that limits fruits, legumes, and grains does not make me feel good. When I was younger I tried Atkins and South Beach and felt gross on them.7 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Most blue zones eat lots of carbs. Those people are healthy."
I agree. Most blue zones. Not all.
The OP is talking about "fast carbs". The code word for ADDED SUGAR. Always bad.
I happen to live in a BLUE ZONE where people live long healthy lives on healthy ANIMAL based foods. As do I.
No one here has suggested that eating some animal-based foods is unhealthy.
However, from prior discussions, I believe you are referring to Costa Rica. Here's a graph showing the break down of the traditional diet, and it does not appear to be "based on" animal-based foods, although like most diets it includes them, of course: https://www.bluezones.com/exploration/nicoya-costa-rica/
5% meat, fish, poultry (and often this means more fish than not)
24% dairy [dairy has carbs, of course]
2% eggs
14% vegetables
7% legumes
26% whole grains
9% fruits
11% added sugar
2% added fatskshama2001 wrote: »Costa Rican Blue Zone in chart form:
I was in a different part of Costa Rica for 6 weeks, ate rice and beans twice per day, tropical fruit all day long, eggs, chicken, and fish just occasionally, zero dairy, and dropped a size without even trying.
I have been to Costa Rica many times and ate plant based easily there, lots of rice and fruit, and also lost weight.
Obesity has quadrupled in Costa Rica in the last 40 years and childhood obesity is looking worse, not good.
Most likely because their diet is becoming more similar to that in the US in many ways, not the fact that the traditional diet contains lots of carbs.
Are you saying that whole foods are less likely to cause obesity than refined, or is it that people like the taste better and they're eating more? BTW I agree with your assessment.
I think people tend to naturally eat less, on average, when eating/cooking with whole foods. Probably a combination of the foods being on average more satiating (there's a study that backed that up that has been discussed here), it requiring more work to actually access them (if you have to cook what you eat other than, say, raw fruit and veg, it's harder to snack a bunch at unplanned times or just for pleasure, not hunger), and for many people certain types of what are often called "ultra palatable foods" may override hunger/satiety cues even if they don't actually taste better to many of us.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions