Try to understand the concept behind low carb diets

arabianhorselover

High carb diets are like riding an energy roller coaster. Right after big meals you're up. 20 minutes later you crash.

It's also ridiculously easy to cut fat lifting heavy while doing High Protein - High Fat - Low Carb.

For years I have been hearing about this "crash". I have never experienced it no matter what I ate, and I have eaten more sugar than most people.

arabianhorselover

There are carbs, and then there are carbs. Some are healthy, some are not. In this society we tend to eat way too much of the unhealthy ones.

hill8570

...I don't fear carbs, fats, or any food at all except mushrooms, they are yucky and grown in poo.

I call dibs on justal313's 'shrooms!

:bigsmile:

jofjltncb6

There are carbs, and then there are carbs. Some are healthy, some are not. In this society we tend to eat way too much of the unhealthy ones.

And what are the "healthy" carbs broken down into during digestion?



edit: because I mixed up which were "healthy" carbs and which were "unhealthy" carbs...much like our bodies do during digestion since they're equivalent.

Kate

I t happens to people with low blood sugar issues (hypoglycemia). If I were to eat cereal or pancakes for breakfast, inevitably I will get shaky and have intense sugar cravings about an hour later...especially if I am doing something that requires me to burn energy.

Kate

High carb diets are like riding an energy roller coaster. Right after big meals you're up. 20 minutes later you crash.

It's also ridiculously easy to cut fat lifting heavy while doing High Protein - High Fat - Low Carb.

For years I have been hearing about this "crash". I have never experienced it no matter what I ate, and I have eaten more sugar than most people.

I t happens to people with low blood sugar issues (hypoglycemia). If I were to eat cereal or pancakes for breakfast, inevitably I will get shaky and have intense sugar cravings about an hour later...especially if I am doing something that requires me to burn energy.

suecatjkl

There was a special on PBS with a doctor, (I forget her name) she said to subtract the amount of fiber from the amount of carbs then dive the answer by 5 and that will give you the number of teaspoons of sugar that you have eaten. She then said that people should eat between 8 and 10 teaspoons of sugar per day. The reason for such low sugar was that sugar causes inflammation which causes high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, maybe stroke... I forget.

There are people including Dr. Fuhrman that say to eat a mostly plant based diet, but he is talking about eating green, berries, onions, mushrooms, beans, seeds and nuts (g-bombs). He says these foods are super healthy. Check him out if you want. Some other guy says cut out all processed flour. I think they all say that.

So, when you eat plant based I think they mean the lower carb plants more than eating lots of fruit.

I eat lots of veg, and some meat and some ICECREAM lol that's my problem. I am trying to eat low sugar though/ low carb for health reasons stated above, but that does not mean I can eat lots of fatty meat. (damn)

Processed foods are really the unhealthy carbs, in my opinion.

tennisdude2004

There are carbs, and then there are carbs. Some are healthy, some are not. In this society we tend to eat way too much of the unhealthy ones.

And what are the "healthy" carbs broken down into during digestion?



edit: because I mixed up which were "healthy" carbs and which were "unhealthy" carbs...much like our bodies do during digestion since they're equivalent.

there are nutrient efficient carbs and nutrient deficient carbs. Also some carbs convert quicker into glucose than others and have differing effects on things such as insulin.

So whilst they all end up as the same thing (glucose), They don't all deliver it with the same goodies or at the same speed. Plus the calories in carbs don't all end up being used to fuel the body, some carbs lose more calories post digestion than other.

pukekolive

tennisdude200 - Ketones are actually NOT fuel - they are toxic byproducts :frown: of the body consuming itself (not necessarily bodyfat, just as likely if not more so that it is consuming lean body mass = muscle) and it, ketosis, is actually a precursor to real starvation.

The presence of ketones also indicates that the body cannot fuel the brain from normal sources (about 18% of your total basal metabolic rate calories) e.g. glucose, carbs, normal digestion as, although toxic, ketones can pass the blood/ brain barrier to allow the body to scavenge them for tiny amounts of fuel. This is why LCHF can make you feel 'woolly headed' and lacking concentration as your body struggles to find enough glucose to fuel your brain's maintenance needs!

The medical profession regards ketosis as an ABNORMAL (not desirable) condition which is harmful to a human's metabolism:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-and-ketones.html

The presence of high levels of ketones in the bloodstream is a common complication of diabetes, which if left untreated can lead to ketoacidosis.

Ketones build up when there is insufficient insulin to help fuel the body’s cells.

High levels of ketones are therefore more common in people with type 1 diabetes or people with advanced type 2 diabetes.


https://www.abbottdiabetescare.com/products/patient/pxtra-ketone-test-stripes-overview/elevated-ketone-levels.html

What are ketones?
In diabetes, there is not enough insulin to help your muscles absorb glucose from the blood. And when your muscles are starved for energy they start to "burn" fat. This produces breakdown products called ketones. These are toxic acids. The accumulation of these acids in the body may lead to elevated levels of ketones (called ketosis).

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
Seriously elevated ketone levels
Occurs when excessive levels of ketone accumulate and the body becomes acidotic
It is a potentially life-threatening condition :devil:
β-Hydroxybutyrate is the predominant ketone associated with DKA

*I have reduced my carb intake as I have found that I don't lose weight with more than 30-40% carbs in my diet (about 110-130grams per day) and I find this is perfectly doable from a flavour/taste/ satisfaction point of view - my protein and fat are around 30% each so my macros are generally a modified 30/30/40 ratio which is very successful fpr me

jofjltncb6

There are carbs, and then there are carbs. Some are healthy, some are not. In this society we tend to eat way too much of the unhealthy ones.

And what are the "healthy" carbs broken down into during digestion?



edit: because I mixed up which were "healthy" carbs and which were "unhealthy" carbs...much like our bodies do during digestion since they're equivalent.

there are nutrient efficient carbs and nutrient deficient carbs. Also some carbs convert quicker into glucose than others and have differing effects on things such as insulin.

So whilst they all end up as the same thing (glucose), They don't all deliver it with the same goodies or at the same speed. Plus the calories in carbs don't all end up being used to fuel the body, some carbs lose more calories post digestion than other.

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate a diet in totality and not individual foods in isolation? If I've reached my nutrient goals for the day, what makes a less "nutrient efficient" food "unhealthy" for me? In what way is conversion to glucose more quickly necessarily and always an "unhealthy" thing? And if I eat an "unhealthy" food (as defined by being quicker to convert to glucose) at the same time that I eat a high-fiber food, is it still "unhealthy"?

SnicciFit

There are carbs, and then there are carbs. Some are healthy, some are not. In this society we tend to eat way too much of the unhealthy ones.

And what are the "healthy" carbs broken down into during digestion?



edit: because I mixed up which were "healthy" carbs and which were "unhealthy" carbs...much like our bodies do during digestion since they're equivalent.

there are nutrient efficient carbs and nutrient deficient carbs. Also some carbs convert quicker into glucose than others and have differing effects on things such as insulin.

So whilst they all end up as the same thing (glucose), They don't all deliver it with the same goodies or at the same speed. Plus the calories in carbs don't all end up being used to fuel the body, some carbs lose more calories post digestion than other.

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate a diet in totality and not individual foods in isolation? If I've reached my nutrient goals for the day, what makes a less "nutrient efficient" food "unhealthy" for me? In what way is conversion to glucose more quickly necessarily and always an "unhealthy" thing? And if I eat an "unhealthy" food (as defined by being quicker to convert to glucose) at the same time that I eat a high-fiber food, is it still "unhealthy"?

jof, the most important part of your reply is this:

If I've reached my nutrient goals for the day, what makes a less "nutrient efficient" food "unhealthy" for me?

I think the majority of people seeking help for weight loss/health are not reaching their nutrient goals, possibly ever. When people refer to SAD, I think they mean the diet that consists of cereal with toast for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch and pasta for dinner with ice cream for dessert. So, in comparison, people like you & I who eat a moderate amount of carbs, fat & protein (I am assuming that we eat similarly as far as our macros go) are "low carb".

tennisdude2004

There are carbs, and then there are carbs. Some are healthy, some are not. In this society we tend to eat way too much of the unhealthy ones.

And what are the "healthy" carbs broken down into during digestion?



edit: because I mixed up which were "healthy" carbs and which were "unhealthy" carbs...much like our bodies do during digestion since they're equivalent.

there are nutrient efficient carbs and nutrient deficient carbs. Also some carbs convert quicker into glucose than others and have differing effects on things such as insulin.

So whilst they all end up as the same thing (glucose), They don't all deliver it with the same goodies or at the same speed. Plus the calories in carbs don't all end up being used to fuel the body, some carbs lose more calories post digestion than other.

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate a diet in totality and not individual foods in isolation? If I've reached my nutrient goals for the day, what makes a less "nutrient efficient" food "unhealthy" for me? In what way is conversion to glucose more quickly necessarily and always an "unhealthy" thing? And if I eat an "unhealthy" food (as defined by being quicker to convert to glucose) at the same time that I eat a high-fiber food, is it still "unhealthy"?

Well for you I do not know? I can only speak for myself - as everyone else on these forums can only speak for themselves.

On a low carb diet the last thing I want is spikes in my insulin levels so for me how quick the glucose hits my system is of concern.

Plus what if you haven't hit your micro nutrients for the day and this is your last bit of food? sorry though I would drop that in as you seem to like hypotheticals.

mortuseon

tennisdude200 - Ketones are actually NOT fuel - they are toxic byproducts :frown: of the body consuming itself (not necessarily bodyfat, just as likely if not more so that it is consuming lean body mass = muscle) and it, ketosis, is actually a precursor to real starvation.

The medical profession regards ketosis as an ABNORMAL (not desirable) condition which is harmful to a human's metabolism:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-and-ketones.html

The presence of high levels of ketones in the bloodstream is a common complication of diabetes, which if left untreated can lead to ketoacidosis.

Ketones build up when there is insufficient insulin to help fuel the body’s cells.

High levels of ketones are therefore more common in people with type 1 diabetes or people with advanced type 2 diabetes.


https://www.abbottdiabetescare.com/products/patient/pxtra-ketone-test-stripes-overview/elevated-ketone-levels.html

What are ketones?
In diabetes, there is not enough insulin to help your muscles absorb glucose from the blood. And when your muscles are starved for energy they start to "burn" fat. This produces breakdown products called ketones. These are toxic acids. The accumulation of these acids in the body may lead to elevated levels of ketones (called ketosis).

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
Seriously elevated ketone levels
Occurs when excessive levels of ketone accumulate and the body becomes acidotic
It is a potentially life-threatening condition :devil:
β-Hydroxybutyrate is the predominant ketone associated with DKA

*I have reduced my carb intake as I have found that I don't lose weight with more than 30-40% carbs in my diet (about 110-130grams per day) and I find this is perfectly doable from a flavour/taste/ satisfaction point of view - my protein and fat are around 30% each so my macros are generally a modified 30/30/40 ratio which is very successful fpr me

no. Ketones are dangerous in high levels (as are most things if you have enough of them) but serve as fuel for your brain when you don't have any glucose left. Ketones being associated with a disease state was debunked in the 1960s by Cahill et al. I know because I'm doing a biochem degree and I had to write an essay on this very subject a couple of weeks ago.
edit: you're thinking of ketoacidosis
second edit: 'insulin to fuel the body's cells'?!!! errr....insulin is a hormone that regulates metabolism. It isn't fuel...

jofjltncb6

There are carbs, and then there are carbs. Some are healthy, some are not. In this society we tend to eat way too much of the unhealthy ones.

And what are the "healthy" carbs broken down into during digestion?



edit: because I mixed up which were "healthy" carbs and which were "unhealthy" carbs...much like our bodies do during digestion since they're equivalent.

there are nutrient efficient carbs and nutrient deficient carbs. Also some carbs convert quicker into glucose than others and have differing effects on things such as insulin.

So whilst they all end up as the same thing (glucose), They don't all deliver it with the same goodies or at the same speed. Plus the calories in carbs don't all end up being used to fuel the body, some carbs lose more calories post digestion than other.

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate a diet in totality and not individual foods in isolation? If I've reached my nutrient goals for the day, what makes a less "nutrient efficient" food "unhealthy" for me? In what way is conversion to glucose more quickly necessarily and always an "unhealthy" thing? And if I eat an "unhealthy" food (as defined by being quicker to convert to glucose) at the same time that I eat a high-fiber food, is it still "unhealthy"?

jof, the most important part of your reply is this:

If I've reached my nutrient goals for the day, what makes a less "nutrient efficient" food "unhealthy" for me?

I think the majority of people seeking help for weight loss/health are not reaching their nutrient goals, possibly ever. When people refer to SAD, I think they mean the diet that consists of cereal with toast for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch and pasta for dinner with ice cream for dessert. So, in comparison, people like you & I who eat a moderate amount of carbs, fat & protein (I am assuming that we eat similarly as far as our macros go) are "low carb".

Then this isn't a "healthy"/"unhealthy" carb dichotomy but a general nutrition issue. I see too many people demonizing "unhealthy" carbs while still not addressing their overall nutrition issue, so it isn't like it's a necessary means to an end. To me, it's a red herring that lulls people into a false understanding of what the *real* issue is re their diet.

jofjltncb6

There are carbs, and then there are carbs. Some are healthy, some are not. In this society we tend to eat way too much of the unhealthy ones.

And what are the "healthy" carbs broken down into during digestion?



edit: because I mixed up which were "healthy" carbs and which were "unhealthy" carbs...much like our bodies do during digestion since they're equivalent.

there are nutrient efficient carbs and nutrient deficient carbs. Also some carbs convert quicker into glucose than others and have differing effects on things such as insulin.

So whilst they all end up as the same thing (glucose), They don't all deliver it with the same goodies or at the same speed. Plus the calories in carbs don't all end up being used to fuel the body, some carbs lose more calories post digestion than other.

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate a diet in totality and not individual foods in isolation? If I've reached my nutrient goals for the day, what makes a less "nutrient efficient" food "unhealthy" for me? In what way is conversion to glucose more quickly necessarily and always an "unhealthy" thing? And if I eat an "unhealthy" food (as defined by being quicker to convert to glucose) at the same time that I eat a high-fiber food, is it still "unhealthy"?

Well for you I do not know? I can only speak for myself - as everyone else on these forums can only speak for themselves.

On a low carb diet the last thing I want is spikes in my insulin levels so for me how quick the glucose hits my system is of concern.

Plus what if you haven't hit your micro nutrients for the day and this is your last bit of food? sorry though I would drop that in as you seem to like hypotheticals.

Except those people are speaking for themselves and labeling the food choices of everyone else.

For heatlhy (read: non-diabetic) people, I don't believe insulin level spikes are a bad thing...and those foods that reduce the short-term spikes prolong the time period in which insulin is elevated. (The height of the spike is decreased but the duration is increased.)

I like hypotheticals insofar as they highlight deficiencies in beliefs. I believe the "healthy"/"unhealthy" carbs dichotomy is a grossly deficient belief.

To answer your hypothetical, using a necessarily oversimplified example, if at the end of the day, I am deficient in calcium and iron, and my food choice is a so-called "healthy" one that's high in vit A and vit C, then it still wasn't necessarily a "healthy" food choice for my situation. Again, individual foods are not necessarily "healthy" or "unhealthy".

cortezpj

"Good reading, this thread is." - Yoda

HAHA... ^^ this!

tennisdude2004

There are carbs, and then there are carbs. Some are healthy, some are not. In this society we tend to eat way too much of the unhealthy ones.

And what are the "healthy" carbs broken down into during digestion?




edit: because I mixed up which were "healthy" carbs and which were "unhealthy" carbs...much like our bodies do during digestion since they're equivalent.

there are nutrient efficient carbs and nutrient deficient carbs. Also some carbs convert quicker into glucose than others and have differing effects on things such as insulin.

So whilst they all end up as the same thing (glucose), They don't all deliver it with the same goodies or at the same speed. Plus the calories in carbs don't all end up being used to fuel the body, some carbs lose more calories post digestion than other.

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate a diet in totality and not individual foods in isolation? If I've reached my nutrient goals for the day, what makes a less "nutrient efficient" food "unhealthy" for me? In what way is conversion to glucose more quickly necessarily and always an "unhealthy" thing? And if I eat an "unhealthy" food (as defined by being quicker to convert to glucose) at the same time that I eat a high-fiber food, is it still "unhealthy"?

Well for you I do not know? I can only speak for myself - as everyone else on these forums can only speak for themselves.

On a low carb diet the last thing I want is spikes in my insulin levels so for me how quick the glucose hits my system is of concern.

Plus what if you haven't hit your micro nutrients for the day and this is your last bit of food? sorry though I would drop that in as you seem to like hypotheticals.

Except those people are speaking for themselves and labeling the food choices of everyone else.

For heatlhy (read: non-diabetic) people, I don't believe insulin level spikes are a bad thing...and those foods that reduce the short-term spikes prolong the time period in which insulin is elevated. (The height of the spike is decreased but the duration is increased.)

I like hypotheticals insofar as they highlight deficiencies in beliefs. I believe the "healthy"/"unhealthy" carbs dichotomy is a grossly deficient belief.

To answer your hypothetical, using a necessarily oversimplified example, if at the end of the day, I am deficient in calcium and iron, and my food choice is a so-called "healthy" one that's high in vit A and vit C, then it still wasn't necessarily a "healthy" food choice for my situation. Again, individual foods are not necessarily "healthy" or "unhealthy".

I agree I personally don't look at carbs as healthy or unhealthy, just what they offer in nutrition.

Some foods taste nice but in reality are neutral in what they offer beyond the macro nutrient (white rice for example). It's not a bad food, but on the flip side it's not good.

If you are eating a certain amount of calories per day, then you have a choice to make, as eating rice will take up calories from other more nutrient rich alternatives. If people are aware of this and chose to do so then great. I had curry and white rice the other day - but I made that choice knowing that all the rice gave me was a fix of starch which broke down into glucose (I still enjoyed it though).

jim180155

I think some of the disagreements here come from different perspectives on carbs. When some people think of carbs they're thinking of white bread, sugared cereals, and the thousands of processed foods available in grocery stores. When I think of carbs I think of veggies and fruits. Some carbs are energy dense with low nutrients, while others are nutrient dense with low calories. Cutting out the former can definitely help you lose weight since they add calories but have little other value. Cutting out the latter can probably also help you lose weight, just as cutting out any of the three macros can, but you also lose out on the nutrients.

Something else that I'm wondering about is that several people have said that eating protein and fat is more filling than eating carbs, providing satiety for a longer period. I think it depends on whether you're measuring your food by volume, weight, or calories. Yesterday I had a salad that I prepared by stuffing a 1 gallon ziplock bag full of fruits and veggies. I then poured the contents into a big tupperware container, added two cans of tuna and salad dressing, then brought it to work. And just out of curiosity, I weighed it. It was over 4 pounds. I could only get through about a third of it during lunch. I ate the balance for dinner.

By volume it was a little over a gallon. By weight it was a little over 4 pounds. By calories, it was 1,079. If you look at the macros, it was 78g carbs, 16g fat, and 31g protein. (That only accounts for about 2/3 the total weight. I'm guessing that the balance was in water.)

It was a LOT of food in terms of weight and volume. It was hard to finish the whole thing last night. But if you compare or measure the calories, it was no more than what I would have had if I had eaten a Double Whopper with cheese.

My point is that I think a lot of people are using different units of measure when they talk about protein being more filling than carbs. I'd agree that 4 ounces of protein is more filling than 4 ounces of carbs, or that one cup of protein is more filling than one cup of carbs. But if you measure in calories, carbs are more filling.

jim180155

I just noticed that I screwed up in my protein, fat and carb weights above. Those figures were for the half of the salad I had at lunch. The total salad was double that.

arabianhorselover

That was a huge salad!