Why are carbs so bad?

Hearts_2015

bump

stroutman81

but I truly believe that weight loss is more than just a thermodynamic equation

And this is really the crux of things in my opinion. Anyone saying that building a better body and better health is solely about calories is very misguided. Obviously a calorie deficit comprising nothing but gum drops and jujubes isn't going to promote leanness and health as well as a diet comprising lean meats, abundant veggies and fruits, a balance of saturated, mono and polyunsaturated fats, etc.

At the end of the day though, I think you'd be hard pressed to show me sufficient peer-reviewed academic research that shows people losing weight in a calorie surplus or gaining weight in a calorie deficit, assuming we're talking about tissue weight and non-diseased people. But who cares about that since we're not here solely for weight loss. People, knowingly or not, are more interested in health and body composition.

And this latter focus requires calorie control AND nutrient control. One without the other is a pointless proposition. Anyone who's arguing that there aren't nutrient needs that need to be accounted for independently of calorie intake is sorely mistaken.

The people claiming that "all calories aren't the same" aren't grasping the specifics. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... just as a meter is a meter. A calorie is merely a unit of measurement. You're confusing nutrients with calories... they aren't interchangeable. Nutrients provide our bodies energy that, for the time being, we quantify with an outdated metric known as the atwater system and calories. Yes, nutrients are not created equal in the "body's eye" which should be obvious to anyone. But that's not the same as saying, "all calories are not equal."

When you delve into the research pertaining to nutrient manipulation, if there are any clear trends, it's that there is no One Way that's right for everyone. People who espouse high carb diets to everyone are misguided just as people who espouse low carb diets to everyone are misguided. Individually tailoring a diet to the individual in question is a must if lasting change is going to be realized.

We've data out there supporting the idea that low carbohydrate approaches are better for some while higher carbohydrate approaches are better for others, further exemplifying why any blanket recommendations are sort of silly. Anyone who works with a wide array of folks in the fat loss setting can vouch that a myriad of diets work depending on the person and the situation. I can say this... in my experience, lower carb approaches tend to work best for my obese clients and by and large, moderate carb approaches tend to work best for my leaner clients. This most likely has something to do with insulin resistance/sensitivity issues which has already been mentioned in this thread.

And if you're truly trying to show that there is some sort of metabolic advantage for anyone eating low carb, you need to wait for sufficient research to be conducted comparing low vs. moderate or high carb approaches THAT MATCH protein and calories. The research simply isn't there yet though. James Krieger, an author and published researcher whom I highly respect and communicate with, put it perfectly when he said:

1. The proposed metabolic advantage (MA) for low carb diets is a hypothesis, not a fact
2. There is inadequate data to support the MA hypothesis
3. There is inadequate data to reject the MA hypothesis
4. The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".
5. A definitive study examining 24-hour energy expenditure (using room calorimetry), comparing a ketogenic diet to a traditional diet (with matched protein intake) for subjects in an energy deficit, has not been performed. This is the only study that will adequately test the MA hypothesis in humans
6. Weight loss still requires an energy deficit. If a MA exists, it still cannot make up for an energy surplus or energy balance. To assert otherwise is to assert that energy can be created or destroyed out of thin air, or that human tissue can be created in the absence of any energy input.

Mind you, his published paper on MA actually supports the MA hypothesis.

and that a person who gets too large of an insulin response will have problems with weight loss, resistant or no.

Yea, it's true that having elevated insulin levels blocks fat oxidation and lipolysis on a meal by meal basis. But what happens if, say, you eat one huge meal and spike insulin to the moon, store fat, shut off lipolysis, etc. and then don't eat again for the rest of the day?

If that one meal was only 1,000 calories and you need 2,500 a day to cover your total daily energy expenditure, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?

And this doesn't even begin to factor in things like rate of digestion... eating even a high-carb diet does not necessarily imply chronically elevated insulin. And low carb zealots (not suggesting you're a zealot) tend to look at things in a vacuum... insulin promotes fat storage, carbs spike insulin, therefore carbs make us fat. They leave out, as already mentioned, the myriad factors that also play a role in fat metabolism such as acylation stimulation protein, catecholamines, HSL, etc.

As I noted above, in the game of weight loss it is about thermodynamics before anything else. In the game of body composition and health, it's much more complex however.

For anyone interested in learning more about insulin and its relation to lipogenesis, I can't recommend Jame Krieger's series on it which you can find here:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

That's part 1 and you can continue on to the other parts from it.

Bumping this post since I'm receiving a ton of questions about this.

hpsnickers1

If you really want to know, read one of Gary Taubes books, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" or "Why we get fat". He gives the best explanation of the low sugar carb theory of nutrition out there. You can also watch the documentary "Fat Head" or go to that movie's website. I'm not advocating anything, but if you really want to know why some people think sugar carbs are bad for weight loss (or nutrition in general) those are the best sources.

I loved Fat Head. I've heard that GC,BC is a little too scientific for me, but WWGF is amazing and easy to understand.

I'm now doing about 60-100 grams of carbs a day, none of which are from wheat (whole or otherwise) and I feel amazing. Fruits and veggies are fine for carbs. I'm also cutting out "non or low-fat" because of all the added garbage. My husband went months without losing hardly anything on reduced calories (bounced around 190 since January) but started a similar plan as I am with all carbs coming from fruits & veggies (and nuts, etc) but not wheat and he's lost 5 pounds in a week. Most is likely water, but it all seems to be off his belly. And he's feeling much better in the mornings and getting through his evening workouts with ease.

I haven't read any of this stuff. I have cut out most flours. I will still have bread or pasta on occasion - I don't deprive myself of anything. I have my carbs at 40% (165g) and I try and fill that with just fruits and veggies (and my morning oatmeal and I do have my added sugars set at 25g - do my best to stay under). When I stopped eating flours I felt like I "emptied out". I have started lifting weights and for the first time since my journey started I have had a tiny drop on my belly fat. Only 2mm on the calipers but I was overjoyed when I saw it.

I don't believe in zero carbs. I do believe is the type of carb that makes all the diffference.

I HAVE SINCE COMPLETELY CHANGED MY MIND SINCE I POSTED THIS COMMENT!!! I have learned quite a bit. I went very low carb just as an experiment at the end of April - happen to come along marksdailyapplecom. I dropped 7lbs of body fat in six weeks - and this was at 120lbs and 5'2". I have amazing muscle definition. I do very little exercise. In fact right now I'm barely doing any strength training at all - I did my first cardio in three week yesterday - 20 minutes on the treadmill doing intervals. My weight hovers between 113-116 yet my body fat % is still dropping (if I go on a sugar binge the scale number goes up - most likely to due water retention that comes with the carb increase. I still have sugar issues - and yes for me all it takes is a piece of bread). I'm now at 19% body fat. I don't eat as much as I burn - I have found that impossible eating a primal diet because protein and fats fill you up for a lot longer than carbs do. I probably eat about 1000 less than what I burn but I don't know because I don't have to worry about calories anymore - I keep an eye on my carb grams and make sure I am getting plenty of protein grams and as for fat I eat as much as I want - last night was three natural, cage-free grilled chicken drumsticks - with skin - and smothered in coconut oil. I was wiping my drumsticks on the plate to make sure I got all the oil!!) I should be dropping 2lbs a week or my metabolism should be slowing down because I am in starvation mode. Neither is happening. My belly is getting flatter and flatter with each passing week (I follow Primal Blueprint Fitness very sporadically). Before my journey to better health I was eating little and I was gaining weight. Not because I was in starvation mode but because my body was telling me it didn't like what I was feeding it.

Qarol

Carbs are not bad. For most people. For me, carbs are detrimental to my weight loss goals. I just don't process them well. I'm always hungry on a traditional diet and the cravings for more and more carbs are always intense. So for me, they're bad. But I'm not most people.

knittnponder

For me, they love riding around on my belly and butt! I can't get them off so it's best for me not to invite them in. The only ones who are invited are in the form of whole foods (in vegetables and conservative amounts of fruit.) If I invite the grainy carbs or sugary carbs they just build themselves a condo over my abs and I'll never see ab muscles again!

stroutman81

If carbs are putting you in a calorie surplus, I could see how that's so.

I don't see how you're packing away slabs of fat that cover your muscle while being in a calorie deficit though. That stored energy has to come from someplace and if you're in an energy deficit... well...

Maybe if you're adding carbs at the expense of protein, and thus giving your body less of a reason to hold onto the "good stuff." But even there, it's a stretch.

knittnponder

I consistently lose faster and lose more inches in my abs when I am reducing carbs than when I am not, even being sure I'm in a deficit. I measure, I weigh (food and myself) and I test body fat % and see better results when I reduce my carbs, especially when I cut out grains.

aj_rock

I think it's hilarious that OP has long since deleted her account and yet this thread still lives...

hpsnickers1

I think it's hilarious that OP has long since deleted her account and yet this thread still lives...

"I don't care who you are, that there's funny!"
Larry the Cable Guy

taso42_DELETED

I think it's hilarious that OP has long since deleted her account and yet this thread still lives...

oh no, wonder what happened to her

stroutman81

I think it's hilarious that OP has long since deleted her account and yet this thread still lives...

I didn't bump it for the sake of the OP. I bumped it because I received 5 emails today about people fearing carbohydrates like they do the boogie man.

stroutman81

I consistently lose faster and lose more inches in my abs when I am reducing carbs than when I am not, even being sure I'm in a deficit. I measure, I weigh (food and myself) and I test body fat % and see better results when I reduce my carbs, especially when I cut out grains.

Losing faster is a lot different than what you originally said... about gaining appreciable fat while dieting.

Losing faster can certainly make sense seeing as how each molecule of glycogen is accompanied by 3 molecules of water. And you might be insulin resistant.

So I can buy that.

reyna99

bump to read later, i don't like the boogie man

stroutman81

bump to read later, i don't like the boogie man

As you long as you don't like boogies. I hear they pack on a ton of fat if you eat them.

JustBreathSB

They're not bad if you don't eat them in excess :-)

stroutman81

I always heard it's the runny ones you need to watch out for. It's akin to the white, buttery sauces restaurants are infamous for drowning their pasta in. If you stick with the dry, hard ones... you should be good. They contain "good" carbs that don't violate the laws of energy.

TK421NotAtPost

If carbs are putting you in a calorie surplus, I could see how that's so.

I don't see how you're packing away slabs of fat that cover your muscle while being in a calorie deficit though. That stored energy has to come from someplace and if you're in an energy deficit... well...

Maybe if you're adding carbs at the expense of protein, and thus giving your body less of a reason to hold onto the "good stuff." But even there, it's a stretch.

After carefully tracking my carb intake and actually weighing all my food for a while, I can't help but to think that people will grossly underestimate the amount of calories they consume when on a moderate to high carb eating plan. It takes a small amount of starchy carbs to get an alarmingly high amount of calories.

Primal eating plan, like many other canned diet plans, is just another method to 'trick' you into eating less calories. There are 5 billion lean people on this planet that eat well above Sisson's "insidious weight gain" level of 150 grams of carbs per day.... my girlfriend being one of them.

stroutman81

If carbs are putting you in a calorie surplus, I could see how that's so.

I don't see how you're packing away slabs of fat that cover your muscle while being in a calorie deficit though. That stored energy has to come from someplace and if you're in an energy deficit... well...

Maybe if you're adding carbs at the expense of protein, and thus giving your body less of a reason to hold onto the "good stuff." But even there, it's a stretch.

After carefully tracking my carb intake and actually weighing all my food for a while, I can't help but to think that people will grossly underestimate the amount of calories they consume when on a moderate to high carb eating plan. It takes a small amount of starchy carbs to get an alarmingly high amount of calories.

Primal eating plan, like many other canned diet plans, is just another method to 'trick' you into eating less calories. There are 5 billion lean people on this planet that eat well above Sisson's "insidious weight gain" level of 150 grams of carbs per day.... my girlfriend being one of them.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Lyadeia

I have been scared of carbs for too long and I dont know why!! Im talking about starch! I love bread and oatmeal but cant eat them without feeling guilty! Why are carbs so bad for weight loss?

They're not!

Without reading all 7 pages here, I will just simply agree with this.

Low carb gained popularity in the 90s (even though it's been around much, much longer) because of certain fad diets that it's associated with. You can lose weight if you are eating sensibly and don't need a fad diet to do it.

...unless you are diabetic or otherwise sensitive to sugar more than most of the population...