can you stll lose belly fat and have carbs?
Replies
-
Not everyone has the ability to be a high performance athlete who can eat anything he/she wants and expect to stay slim and trim.
Of course. People who aren't high performance athletes are the ones who store belly fat with carbs. Athletes don't. They're special snowflakes.
High performance athletes have very well-developed musculature and very low body fat. But they will often complain of "getting fat" while not intensively training.0 -
You can't target any particular area through diet or exercise. You just need to eat at a deficit and you will lose fat from all over your body, not just your stomach.
I personally love carbs, and fat and protein. I haven't had trouble losing weight, while eating anything I want, as long as I'm at a deficit. Carbs usually make up about 50% of my calorie intake.
I'm glad it's working out for you. It should be noted that you are 22 years old. Older individuals may have different weight loss parameters.
I'm not 22 any more. I've never really worried about carbs. And I've never had a lot of issue with belly fat, except what hangs around after a baby (and it's going away by eating at a small deficit and lifting heavy … just my personal method, not saying it's the only way). I do pay attention to getting enough protein, which naturally lowers my carbs since and increase in one macro requires a decrease in another, but I still eat 150-200 g of carbs daily on a fairly regular basis.
Is it possible that some people are sensitive to carbs? Of course. But most people probably aren't. After all, I remember when almost this exact same debate was going on about fat. About 22 years ago… :laugh:0 -
Not everyone has the ability to be a high performance athlete who can eat anything he/she wants and expect to stay slim and trim.
Of course. People who aren't high performance athletes are the ones who store belly fat with carbs. Athletes don't. They're special snowflakes.
High performance athletes have very well-developed musculature and very low body fat. But they will often complain of "getting fat" while not intensively training.
Uh, no kidding. Because they eat more or less the same and are burning way fewer calories.
Carbs do not contribute preferentially to belly fat, no matter what unscientific books or sugar alarmists tell you.0 -
I'm old enough to be a 22-year-old's mother - that is in fact a handful of years older than my actual kid.
This week I had pumpkin pie, Coolwhip, tons of fruit, waffles, cereal and other carbs for breakfast EVERY DAY. I had couscous (a carb) and pizza and pizza rolls and bread for dinner EVERY DAY. I am not much of an athlete.
I lost 1.2 lbs this week.
Please err on the side of science and common sense. There is no devil food. Eat what you want and work it all into your calorie goals.0 -
*sings* La la la you cannot target weight loss La la la but you probably won't listen to meeeeeeeeeee.0
-
Serious question- Do you have links to studies that have debunked this? I haven't read the book, but have heard of bit about it and it makes sense for some people. Would like to read some scientific studies that have proven it to be untrue, if that is the case. And did it debunk everything that was claimed, or just certain parts?Wheat belly has been dubunked and is ridiculous. He clearly misquoted and falsified the information presented. His referenced studies don't support his claims.
You're fine.
Actually the studies he cites himself are the debunking ones. He blatantly misquotes them and misrepresents them. I'm on my iPad and don't have my references available, they're on my laptop. I'm way too lazy to fire that up. I hate to link a blog, but it has most of the valid points in it and because, lazy.
http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.com/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.html0 -
Unless you have a medical problem, sugar, other carbs, fats, etc... don't cause any problems as long as you burn all your calories.
If you're not burning all your calories, then consistently having an excess of whatever in your bloodstream Is not healthy in the long run and will just end up stored as fat in the short run.
Eat healthy and try to get all your nutrients in your food, and as long as you're burning everything you eat or running a deficit, don't get too concerned with the numbers or ratios. The main thing that will help to reduce body fat and retain more lean mass is exercise along with your diet.
Forget about spot reduction. Your body decides where it reduces fat with no regard to where you want it to. Generally the place you have the most fat (which is most likely the place where you specifically want to lose it) is the last place to lose it all since that has the most accumulated fat to lose.0 -
I have found that since I cut out wheat (ever read the book, Wheat Belly?) and added sugar that I have lost a disproportionate share of abdominal fat. I used to just lose it all over when I was at a higher percentage of carbs. Now, I limit my carbs to 20% and still avoid the added sugar and wheat. I eat a bit of organic, sourdough rye and oatmeal almost every morning. Other than that, I get my carbs from veggies and fruits.
Wheat Belly is absolute nonsense. Your claims are equally ridiculous.
OP, do not listen to this person.
Still your usual rudeness, I see.
What exactly is ridiculous about what I have said? I have lost a little less than six pounds in the last four months--yet I have gone down a size in jeans and the ones I am wearing right now are loose around the waist. You have posted nothing in support of your claims yet you feel free to insult those who have actual experience with what they claim. Tsk-tsk. For shame!
The ridiculous thing is that you have zero data. "Oh I lost weight, and my belly got smaller!" Oh. Well OK. Happens to the rest of us too. My abdomen skinfold went from 23mm to 9.5 mm while averaging something like 200+ g of carbs a day.
Besides, anecdotes are not data. The idea that carbs somehow contribute to belly fat is completely without any merit whatsoever.
There's a LOT of scientific evidence that lowering excessively high blood sugar leads to loss of body fat (and almost every obese person has chronically elevated levels of blood sugar--duh, that's how they got fat!). Further, almost every obese woman has leptin resistance, and a lot of them have insulin resistance as well. The most effective way to lower both is to restrict carbohydrates. The medical community seems to be confused over the whole subject of carbohydrates. But, people are starting to share information on their weight loss and lots of "anecdotes" add up to the importance of restricting carbohydrates--particularly the "empty calorie" kind like sucrose and wheat starch.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1120102-scapegoat-of-this-decade-sugar
I raise you actual studies.
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism
Here are studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference
An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract
Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.
Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201
In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.
Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial
http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.
No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862
CONCLUSION:
This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.
Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full
Summary
The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation
HFCS not linked to fatty liver disease
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0322#.UaPWA5G9KSN
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y2012-122#.UaPW95G9KSM
"Recent research indicates an association between brain dysfunction and the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome. To investigate this, we created a Medline search (up to December 2011) of articles in PubMed. The results indicated that refined carbohydrates, saturated and total fat, high levels of ω-6 fatty acids, and low levels of ω-3 fatty acids and other long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), all in conjunction with sedentary behaviour and mental stress can predispose to inflammation...."0 -
Carbs are pretty much the same. I was a gestational diabetic.. and once I was diagnosed I cut out a good amount of carbs (sugars) and lost 10 lbs in 3 weeks0
-
I think that sugar is a far bigger issue than carbs. But what do I know anyways. Continue on ....
Well, since sugar is a carb and it raises blood sugar levels very quickly, I would agree with you. There is however, a substance in wheat that raises blood sugar levels even faster than candy---amylopectin-A. Amylopectin is a starch that is widely consumed by eating plant starch, whether it is from corn, wheat, rice or white potatoes. But the consumption of fiber along with the starch is important to slow down the rise in blood glucose. When you eat the starch without the corresponding fiber (such as in eating white bread) blood sugar rises very quickly. Eating sugar is also problematic of course.
The research has already been done--obesity as well as Type II diabetes is the result of chronic hyperglycemia. Obesity does not CAUSE diabetes. Both diseases are essentially the same disease (a number of researchers are now calling it "diabesity") and they are both the result of eating too high a percentage of our calories as carbohydrate and not burning it off through exercise. Overeating on protein and fat are far less common (as a matter of fact, we, on average, eat slightly less fat and protein than our ancestors who were slender). The difference is the growth in the type and amount of carbohydrate in our diet and particularly sugar (which is tucked away in nearly all highly processed junk food). Combining that kind of a carbohydrate-rich diet with our sedentary habits was just a health disaster waiting to happen--and in fact it already has. By the way, obesity is our body's more "safe" way of disposing of high blood sugar.0 -
[Obesity and diabetes] are both the result of eating too high a percentage of our calories as carbohydrate
This is false. Quit lying to people.0 -
I have found that since I cut out wheat (ever read the book, Wheat Belly?) and added sugar that I have lost a disproportionate share of abdominal fat. I used to just lose it all over when I was at a higher percentage of carbs. Now, I limit my carbs to 20% and still avoid the added sugar and wheat. I eat a bit of organic, sourdough rye and oatmeal almost every morning. Other than that, I get my carbs from veggies and fruits.
Wheat Belly is absolute nonsense. Your claims are equally ridiculous.
OP, do not listen to this person.
Still your usual rudeness, I see. What exactly is ridiculous about what I have said? I have lost a little less than six pounds in the last four months--yet I have gone down a size in jeans and the ones I am wearing right now are loose around the waist. You have posted nothing in support of your claims yet you feel free to insult those who have actual experience with what they claim. Tsk-tsk. For shame!
The ridiculous thing is that you have zero data. "Oh I lost weight, and my belly got smaller!" Oh. Well OK. Happens to the rest of us too. My abdomen skinfold went from 23mm to 9.5 mm while averaging something like 200+ g of carbs a day.
Besides, anecdotes are not data. The idea that carbs somehow contribute to belly fat is completely without any merit whatsoever.
There's a LOT of scientific evidence that lowering excessively high blood sugar leads to loss of body fat (and almost every obese person has chronically elevated levels of blood sugar--duh, that's how they got fat!). Further, almost every obese woman has leptin resistance, and a lot of them have insulin resistance as well. The most effective way to lower both is to restrict carbohydrates. The medical community seems to be confused over the whole subject of carbohydrates. But, people are starting to share information on their weight loss and lots of "anecdotes" add up to the importance of restricting carbohydrates--particularly the "empty calorie" kind like sucrose and wheat starch.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1120102-scapegoat-of-this-decade-sugar
I raise you actual studies.
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism
Here are studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference
An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract
Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.
Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201
In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.
Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial
http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.
No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862
CONCLUSION:
This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.
Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full
Summary
The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation
HFCS not linked to fatty liver disease
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0322#.UaPWA5G9KSN
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y2012-122#.UaPW95G9KSM
"Recent research indicates an association between brain dysfunction and the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome. To investigate this, we created a Medline search (up to December 2011) of articles in PubMed. The results indicated that refined carbohydrates, saturated and total fat, high levels of ω-6 fatty acids, and low levels of ω-3 fatty acids and other long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), all in conjunction with sedentary behaviour and mental stress can predispose to inflammation...."
In to see the rebuttal.0 -
I'm old enough to be a 22-year-old's mother - that is in fact a handful of years older than my actual kid.
This week I had pumpkin pie, Coolwhip, tons of fruit, waffles, cereal and other carbs for breakfast EVERY DAY. I had couscous (a carb) and pizza and pizza rolls and bread for dinner EVERY DAY. I am not much of an athlete.
I lost 1.2 lbs this week.
Please err on the side of science and common sense. There is no devil food. Eat what you want and work it all into your calorie goals.
Well, if calories were the only consideration, then why don't you simply eat your daily quotient of calories in cup cakes?
0 -
I'm old enough to be a 22-year-old's mother - that is in fact a handful of years older than my actual kid.
This week I had pumpkin pie, Coolwhip, tons of fruit, waffles, cereal and other carbs for breakfast EVERY DAY. I had couscous (a carb) and pizza and pizza rolls and bread for dinner EVERY DAY. I am not much of an athlete.
I lost 1.2 lbs this week.
Please err on the side of science and common sense. There is no devil food. Eat what you want and work it all into your calorie goals.
Well, if calories were the only consideration, then why don't you simply eat your daily quotient of calories in cup cakes?
Calories are the only consideration in weight loss. Nutrient intake matters for health and body composition.0 -
I'm old enough to be a 22-year-old's mother - that is in fact a handful of years older than my actual kid.
This week I had pumpkin pie, Coolwhip, tons of fruit, waffles, cereal and other carbs for breakfast EVERY DAY. I had couscous (a carb) and pizza and pizza rolls and bread for dinner EVERY DAY. I am not much of an athlete.
I lost 1.2 lbs this week.
Please err on the side of science and common sense. There is no devil food. Eat what you want and work it all into your calorie goals.
Well, if calories were the only consideration, then why don't you simply eat your daily quotient of calories in cup cakes?
You could. But then you would get sick of cupcakes. And who wants to get sick of cupcakes?0 -
[Obesity and diabetes] are both the result of eating too high a percentage of our calories as carbohydrate
This is false. Quit lying to people.
I do not lie. Why not include the whole quote? That is lying in itself. As I said earlier, if you burn your carbohydrates off through exercise (such as the case with high performance athletes), then they are not a problem for you. But there are other considerations--especially for women who tend to run much higher levels of blood glucose (due to the influence of estrogen) anyway. Women also tend to become leptin-resistant very easily because they run 2 to 3 times the level of leptin AT THE SAME BODY FAT LEVEL AS MEN. And leptin-resistance is a precursor and predictor of insulin-resistance. People become more sedentary as they age (joint problems and other disease states interfere with exercise goals) and carbohydrate restriction--especially restriction of added sugar and starches (which have typically been emptied of important nutrients) merely make sense, as a way of controlling excess blood sugar. Why encourage people to eat things that are not good for them? Do you own stock in Taco Bell or something?0 -
I'm old enough to be a 22-year-old's mother - that is in fact a handful of years older than my actual kid.
This week I had pumpkin pie, Coolwhip, tons of fruit, waffles, cereal and other carbs for breakfast EVERY DAY. I had couscous (a carb) and pizza and pizza rolls and bread for dinner EVERY DAY. I am not much of an athlete.
I lost 1.2 lbs this week.
Please err on the side of science and common sense. There is no devil food. Eat what you want and work it all into your calorie goals.
Well, if calories were the only consideration, then why don't you simply eat your daily quotient of calories in cup cakes?
You could. But then you would get sick of cupcakes. And who wants to get sick of cupcakes?
I think the operative word there is "sick". There is a sensible way to lose body fat and there is a dangerous way. I've done both.0 -
Barring a health problem, the only thing necessary for weight loss is eating fewer calories than you burn.0
-
I'm old enough to be a 22-year-old's mother - that is in fact a handful of years older than my actual kid.
This week I had pumpkin pie, Coolwhip, tons of fruit, waffles, cereal and other carbs for breakfast EVERY DAY. I had couscous (a carb) and pizza and pizza rolls and bread for dinner EVERY DAY. I am not much of an athlete.
I lost 1.2 lbs this week.
Please err on the side of science and common sense. There is no devil food. Eat what you want and work it all into your calorie goals.
Well, if calories were the only consideration, then why don't you simply eat your daily quotient of calories in cup cakes?
Calories are the only consideration in weight loss. Nutrient intake matters for health and body composition.
Ahh--now we're getting somewhere, Jonny. I would totally agree with your last statement. Permanent and healthy-as-possible fat loss is the sensible thing to do. And the best way to do that is to restrict "empty" calories while increasing health-building foods and increasing daily activity. Not rocket science.0 -
Barring a health problem, the only thing necessary for weight loss is eating fewer calories than you burn.
But obesity IS a healthy problem.0 -
I eat carbs and I think my picture speaks for itself in terms of belly fat.0
-
I have found that since I cut out wheat (ever read the book, Wheat Belly?) and added sugar that I have lost a disproportionate share of abdominal fat. I used to just lose it all over when I was at a higher percentage of carbs. Now, I limit my carbs to 20% and still avoid the added sugar and wheat. I eat a bit of organic, sourdough rye and oatmeal almost every morning. Other than that, I get my carbs from veggies and fruits.
Wheat Belly is absolute nonsense. Your claims are equally ridiculous.
OP, do not listen to this person.
Still your usual rudeness, I see. What exactly is ridiculous about what I have said? I have lost a little less than six pounds in the last four months--yet I have gone down a size in jeans and the ones I am wearing right now are loose around the waist. You have posted nothing in support of your claims yet you feel free to insult those who have actual experience with what they claim. Tsk-tsk. For shame!
The ridiculous thing is that you have zero data. "Oh I lost weight, and my belly got smaller!" Oh. Well OK. Happens to the rest of us too. My abdomen skinfold went from 23mm to 9.5 mm while averaging something like 200+ g of carbs a day.
Besides, anecdotes are not data. The idea that carbs somehow contribute to belly fat is completely without any merit whatsoever.
There's a LOT of scientific evidence that lowering excessively high blood sugar leads to loss of body fat (and almost every obese person has chronically elevated levels of blood sugar--duh, that's how they got fat!). Further, almost every obese woman has leptin resistance, and a lot of them have insulin resistance as well. The most effective way to lower both is to restrict carbohydrates. The medical community seems to be confused over the whole subject of carbohydrates. But, people are starting to share information on their weight loss and lots of "anecdotes" add up to the importance of restricting carbohydrates--particularly the "empty calorie" kind like sucrose and wheat starch.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1120102-scapegoat-of-this-decade-sugar
I raise you actual studies.
Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism
Here are studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference
An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women
http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract
Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.
Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201
In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.
Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial
http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.
No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862
CONCLUSION:
This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.
Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full
Summary
The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation
HFCS not linked to fatty liver disease
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0322#.UaPWA5G9KSN
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y2012-122#.UaPW95G9KSM
"Recent research indicates an association between brain dysfunction and the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome. To investigate this, we created a Medline search (up to December 2011) of articles in PubMed. The results indicated that refined carbohydrates, saturated and total fat, high levels of ω-6 fatty acids, and low levels of ω-3 fatty acids and other long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), all in conjunction with sedentary behaviour and mental stress can predispose to inflammation...."
It seems that food science, like all other science has been compromised by political considerations these days. I once heard a chemist insist that you could get just about any conclusion you wanted in a scientific report (for the right amount of money in a research grant, of course). The whole GMO debacle in Washington is a case in point. Frankenscience will eventually extinguish the vast majority of human life on the planet--if we let it.0 -
I eat carbs and I think my picture speaks for itself in terms of belly fat.
Have you ever been morbidly obese? I eat carbs myself--but I have to be very careful about the ones I do eat.0 -
Sugar is not only a carb it is a hormone affecting poison imho.0
-
Just eat less calories than you burn in a day.
Rinse and repeat.
You'll lose fat.
Some of that fat will come off of your belly.
Carb/low carb/no carb is irrelevant. Well it's only relevant if you want religious dogma.....0 -
It seems that food science, like all other science has been compromised by political considerations these days. I once heard a chemist insist that you could get just about any conclusion you wanted in a scientific report (for the right amount of money in a research grant, of course). The whole GMO debacle in Washington is a case in point. Frankenscience will eventually extinguish the vast majority of human life on the planet--if we let it.
So essentially you have no scientific studies to refute his and instead put on a tinfoil hat and claim conspiracy.
Got it.0 -
I eat carbs and I think my picture speaks for itself in terms of belly fat.
Have you ever been morbidly obese? I eat carbs myself--but I have to be very careful about the ones I do eat.
I have lost 30kg over the years. I also have no thyroid function and rheumatoid arthritis so do not pay heed to excuses.0 -
Losing belly fat is a function of a calorie deficit not a function of macro ratio entakes. That is all.0
-
Step one... Stop arguing...
Step two... Read article by Lyle McDonald whom is an expert in the field of dieting. BTW... I'm sorry but women don't react carbs differently than men; they just tend to have slower metabolic rates. I find the sexism in this claim appalling. I am so appalled I am crying uncontrollably and don't know when I will stop... I very ultra extremely appalled... By this racism... Why be racist against men? We've done nothing wrong... But... A few things maybe.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/carbohydrate-and-fat-controversies-part-1.html
Step three... Get a glass wine... Turn on some good tunes... Sit back... Let the good times roll.
When did 'men' become a race?0 -
Barring a health problem, the only thing necessary for weight loss is eating fewer calories than you burn.
But obesity IS a healthy problem.
Caused. By. Eating. Too. Many. Calories. *eyeroll*0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions