Carbs & Sugars :(
Replies
-
I think the biggest thing to take from all this is none of the above even remotely applies to those with chronic elevated blood glucose levels (i.e. pre-diabetics, T2 diabetics, T1 diabetics, or ANYONE with a metabolic disorder or condition).
Common sense would also dictate eating a diet high in sugar isn't going to do much in terms of satiety and nutrient provision. And not pulling studies, it's generally also not very beneficial to your teeth.
And back to the OP - the "high sugar" consumption for the day was due namely to the consumption of fruit, which again, common sense - eating portions of fruit or lactose-containing dairy will elevate sugar levels, but is not harmful to the average person.
And how many people on MFP have over 50 lbs to lose and are probably insulin resistant? My point is just that it's not helpful to call people names because they have different needs on their path to weight loss.0 -
Then your professor is right and wrong.I have no idea which metabolic pathway you're referring to there but when I took biochemistry my professor hammered home over and over that insulin is the big boy, the bully, the boss of metabolic regulation. We weren't even talking about diets, just in general. Insulin is incredibly important to the way our bodies process what we eat. Our bodies are complicated, it isn't us making them out to be complicated. The pathway you just described only illustrates that. I'll say it again: calories in/calories out is important, but it's not the whole story.
I hope you enjoyed your Chipotle as much as I enjoyed my spicy thai chicken lettuce wraps. Yum.
Biochemistry is incredibly important in the realm of nutrition, but it's not THE most important means of determining the PRACTICAL application of those understandings. Yes insulin is incredibly important. But when is it incredibly important? It sounds like your professor spoke in universal terms where insulin is always bad, and whenever its levels are elevated, bad things are happening. And furthermore: keeping insulin levels from going up, even on a temporary basis, is ALWAYS optimal.
That is what is false. Your professor is right in the fact that CHRONICALLY raised insulin levels ought to be avoided. That's where you run into trouble. However, the TEMPORARY spikes from insulin that arise from eating a meal are not something to be feared.0 -
bump0
-
Uhhh yeah, because he's telling me that I'm promoting a high sugar diet, or saying there can't possibly be anything wrong with it from a general health perspective. Despite me saying I would NEVER promote it quite a few posts before he even showed up.You cant argue with someone like him. you wont win him over. I would just stop. everyone else has.
Should I not defend myself or something?0 -
Then your professor is right and wrong.
Biochemistry is incredibly important in the realm of nutrition, but it's not THE most important means of determining the PRACTICAL application of those understandings. Yes insulin is incredibly important. But when is it incredibly important? It sounds like your professor spoke in universal terms where insulin is always bad, and whenever its levels are elevated, bad things are happening. And furthermore: keeping insulin levels from going up, even on a temporary basis, is ALWAYS optimal.
That is what is false. Your professor is right in the fact that CHRONICALLY raised insulin levels ought to be avoided. That's where you run into trouble. However, the TEMPORARY spikes from insulin that arise from eating a meal are not something to be feared.
No, he didn't say anything like this. You're reading more into what I said than what was there. He never said insulin is bad, he said it is large and in charge as far as metabolic regulation goes. We've evolved for that to be the case because it was beneficial in our previous environment.
The typical American diet which is rich in highly processed carbs does lead to chronically raised insulin levels which may not cause problems for years - or not at all for some people. But for those of us who it does cause a problem for can definitely benefit from limiting carbs. Especially pure sugar which exacerbates the problem. This is exactly what Taubes says if you actually read the books.
And I don't think he is right about everything. I don't agree with some of his conclusions and what I consider over-simplified logic, but I do agree that the American obesity epidemic is a direct result of the processed carbs we have started eating in the last 30 years.0 -
Uhhh yeah, because he's telling me that I'm promoting a high sugar diet, or saying there can't possibly be anything wrong with it from a general health perspective. Despite me saying I would NEVER promote it quite a few posts before he even showed up.You cant argue with someone like him. you wont win him over. I would just stop. everyone else has.
Should I not defend myself or something?
Let me remind you of what you did say since you seem to have forgotten:
"it doesn't do any harm for those who don't have some sort of clinical condition. "
"then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant. "
"If you are at a caloric deficit and do not have a clinical condition such as diabetes, then "excess sugar" is an impossible term."
Your words, not mine.0 -
Very well - sorry for making assumptions.No, he didn't say anything like this. You're reading more into what I said than what was there. He never said insulin is bad, he said it is large and in charge as far as metabolic regulation goes. We've evolved for that to be the case because it was beneficial in our previous environment.
The typical American diet which is rich in highly processed carbs does lead to chronically raised insulin levels which may not cause problems for years - or not at all for some people. But for those of us who it does cause a problem for can definitely benefit from limiting carbs. Especially pure sugar which exacerbates the problem. This is exactly what Taubes says if you actually read the books.
And I don't think he is right about everything. I don't agree with some of his conclusions and what I consider over-simplified logic, but I do agree that the American obesity epidemic is a direct result of the processed carbs we have started eating in the last 30 years.
Highly processed carbs will not lead to chronically raised insulin levels if calories are moderated, though. Do you disagree? If you eat a high level of processed carbs while remaining in a caloric deficit - where fat loss will be achieved and general markers of health subsequently improve - do you believe that will lead to insulin resistance?
From a body compositional standpoint, including hormonal issues associated with weight gain, the main culprit above all else is an irresponsible caloric surplus. That is the NECESSARY factor for any of these bad things to occur (outside of those with clinical issues, like diabetes). "Too many carbs" can only be "too many carbs" if you're in a caloric surplus, and for that reason, eating a high amount of carbs alone is not worthy of blame for all our obesity issues; too many calories still remains the problem.0 -
Let me remind you of what I did say BEFORE I said any of that, in fact, the VERY FIRST THING I SAID ON THIS THREAD:Let me remind you of what you did say since you seem to have forgotten:
"it doesn't do any harm for those who don't have some sort of clinical condition. "
"then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant. "
"If you are at a caloric deficit and do not have a clinical condition such as diabetes, then "excess sugar" is an impossible term."
Your words, not mine.
-"Stop fearing carbs and start fearing a caloric surplus as that is what matters in terms of weight loss."
"IN TERMS OF WEIGHT LOSS."
Can't make it any more clear for you. My entire stance has been solely relevant to weight loss. If someone said, "untz, would you suggest someone take on this diet, or would it be comparable to a diet more rich in micronutrients for general health?" I would have laughed.
I even explicitly stated that I did not promote such a diet.
Suck up your pride and admit you are wrong. Just say you didn't read my initial posts and responded later in the thread without seeing the basis of my argument, which has been speaking solely in regards to body composition and weight loss. Considering the OP said, "I'm worried this will affect my goal of dropping my last few pounds, and toning up."0 -
Let me remind you of what I did say BEFORE I said any of that, in fact, the VERY FIRST THING I SAID ON THIS THREAD:Let me remind you of what you did say since you seem to have forgotten:
"it doesn't do any harm for those who don't have some sort of clinical condition. "
"then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant. "
"If you are at a caloric deficit and do not have a clinical condition such as diabetes, then "excess sugar" is an impossible term."
Your words, not mine.
-"Stop fearing carbs and start fearing a caloric surplus as that is what matters in terms of weight loss."
"IN TERMS OF WEIGHT LOSS."
Can't make it any more clear for you. My entire stance has been solely relevant to weight loss. If someone said, "untz, would you suggest someone take on this diet, or would it be comparable to a diet more rich in micronutrients for general health?" I would have laughed.
I even explicitly stated that I did not promote such a diet.
Suck up your pride and admit you are wrong. Just say you didn't read my initial posts and responded later in the thread without seeing the basis of my argument, which has been speaking solely in regards to body composition and weight loss. Considering the OP said, "I'm worried this will affect my goal of dropping my last few pounds, and toning up."
If that is the case than why do you always add this caveat "unless you have a clinical condition"? How could that possibly be important to weight loss alone? Are you saying that a person with diabetes who maintains a caloric deficit won't lose weight? That would have to be right, since you are talking "strictly in terms of weight loss".
You suck it up and admit you were wrong, the proof is all over this thread.0 -
Because carbs are metabolized differently when you are insulin resistant or diabetic. I would make the suggestion that those who know they are insulin resistant moderate carbs to a higher degree FOR the purpose of weight loss and not solely general health.If that is the case than why do you always add this caveat "unless you have a clinical condition"? How could that possibly be important to weight loss alone? Are you saying that a person with diabetes who maintains a caloric deficit won't lose weight? That would have to be right, since you are talking "strictly in terms of weight loss".
You suck it up and admit you were wrong, the proof is all over this thread.
The proof where I said this is solely in regards to weight loss or when I explicitly stated I do not promote such a diet. Yeah, that's there. You're making gross assumptions. Had I never said, "this is solely in regards to weight loss," which was in my very first post, then I would have to revise myself as you are saying. But I clearly laid out my argument.
Is it really this difficult to read carefully and absorb the core argument from a few paragraphs worth of writing? It's like I'm explaining this to a 13 year old.0 -
Simple carbs don't defy the law of thermodynamics, sorry. If you are at a caloric deficit, it is impossible to gain weight. Period. If you are at a caloric deficit, it is impossible to not LOSE weight. Law of thermodynamics applied to weight loss is relevant. Sugar does not change that physical law of nature.I have to disagree. If most of the carbs are simple carbs, it's important to exclude that from our daily diet. I also find it hard to believe that she is getting enough protein if she's this far over on carbs, because it's quite apparent the majority of her calories are coming from carbs.
To original poster: Eat more protein! Eat nuts for snacks, or boiled egg whites, or even switch some of the fruit to veggies, and eat lots of lean meats. Make a tuna salad. Those are some ideas to get you more protein and less carbs.
I have done my research and agree 100% with this post. I'm just too busy today to go into detail. Invest in the books Why We Get Fat and Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. You will be shocked and fascinated and enlightened.
If she's eating 1,600 calories and 100g protein, then that leaves 1,200 calories for fat/carbs, meaning she could eat 300g carbs per day. Just to illustrate that you have no idea if she's THAT far over her carbs for the day.
Reading a data cherry-picker like Taubes is not doing research. He bases pretty much all of his claims off correlations and biochemical studies; neither of which look at the practicality of nutrition. Making decisions on what is permitted in a diet or how our bodies function when eating "X" or "Y" is best done by looking at clinical trials - comparing one group to another - controlling all variables except for that which is in question (in this case, sugar consumption), and measuring differences.
Zero clinical trials exist that show hindered weight loss by eating sugar so long as macronutrients are maintained AND the people in question are not insulin resistant/diabetic.
This.
Conservation of Energy: No matter can be created nor destroyed.
Always get lulz from the carbophobes and their insulin fairy who completely ignore the body's state of energy insufficiency (AMP, ADP, etc) where the appropriate enzymes are phosphorylated, specifically ACP, which curtails lipid biosynthesis. Furthermore, malonyl-coa is inhibited allowing the carnitine shuttle to transport long-chain fatty acids into the mitochondria for beta-oxidation.
brb enjoying Chipotle for lunch with the white rice, tortilla,and sour cream. Slid perfectly in my macros today
Ah, but whereas my macros are low in carbohydrate, I stay within my suggested caloric deficit and feel full, happy, and content. I do targeted refeeds on weekends. If being full and satisfied from my choice of foods makes me a carbophobe, then I relish the title. But I am at peace knowing what combination of foods enables me to stay within my caloric limits for the day. When I do a targeted re-feed or plan to do a high level of activity, I compensate with eating more fruits and some rice.
Not everyone eating low carb preaches Taubes.
As long as it works for you, great I say. I lift heavy 4 times per week and jog, and need my carbs. I feel full as long as I get my protein and fats; we are all different and the important thing is you still maintain a calorie deficit. My problem comes is when the carbophobes preach that it is somehow superior or the only thing that will help you lose weight (which I don't think you are doing) - this is simply not the case.
Nah, the deficit STILL matters. I lift heavy 3X per week - compound lifts, my cardio is all lo/slo - hiking, walking. I haven't had energy problems but did have them when I tried a foray into half marathon training. Carbed up, felt like crap, hungry all the time, blew my caloric deficit by loading on sugary crap, gained weight. Lesson learned - running is NOT for me. I feel like a champ being in keto with heavy lifting, tho.
I've also lost weight in the past eating higher carb, but again, it was the deficit, not the macros that spurred the weight loss. At that time I wasn't doing any running or training, just very novice fitness - walking, light lifting. I simply found the macros hard to sustain in the long run and felt limited.
That's what I said, it is the deficit that matters. I can't take the brain fog of low carb, nor do I like the fatigue, but if it works for you go for it.0 -
Because carbs are metabolized differently when you are insulin resistant or diabetic. I would make the suggestion that those who know they are insulin resistant moderate carbs to a higher degree FOR the purpose of weight loss and not solely general health.If that is the case than why do you always add this caveat "unless you have a clinical condition"? How could that possibly be important to weight loss alone? Are you saying that a person with diabetes who maintains a caloric deficit won't lose weight? That would have to be right, since you are talking "strictly in terms of weight loss".
You suck it up and admit you were wrong, the proof is all over this thread.
The proof where I said this is solely in regards to weight loss or when I explicitly stated I do not promote such a diet. Yeah, that's there. You're making gross assumptions. Had I never said, "this is solely in regards to weight loss," which was in my very first post, then I would have to revise myself as you are saying. But I clearly laid out my argument.
Is it really this difficult to read carefully and absorb the core argument from a few paragraphs worth of writing? It's like I'm explaining this to a 13 year old.
We have presented our sides and I say we let people decide for themselves who is right in this case.0 -
Very well - sorry for making assumptions.
Highly processed carbs will not lead to chronically raised insulin levels if calories are moderated, though. Do you disagree? If you eat a high level of processed carbs while remaining in a caloric deficit - where fat loss will be achieved and general markers of health subsequently improve - do you believe that will lead to insulin resistance?
I do disagree with your first statement. If you eat a cookie, your insulin is going to "overreact". If you live off of cookies, but stay under a specific calorie goal, your insulin will still be crazy (and of course you will be malnourished but that is another topic). This is EXACTLY what Taubes spends way too much time explaining in "Why We Get Fat" regarding why mothers are obese in poor countries (I want to say Barbados or Jamaica, but I don't have the book to hand) while their children are underweight. The mothers and children are eating similarly but the mothers are insulin resistant after years of eating poor quality carbs.From a body compositional standpoint, including hormonal issues associated with weight gain, the main culprit above all else is an irresponsible caloric surplus. That is the NECESSARY factor for any of these bad things to occur (outside of those with clinical issues, like diabetes). "Too many carbs" can only be "too many carbs" if you're in a caloric surplus, and for that reason, eating a high amount of carbs alone is not worthy of blame for all our obesity issues; too many calories still remains the problem.
Again, I don't disagree that too many calories is a problem. I don't think it's the only piece of the puzzle - AT ALL. I believe the American obesity epidemic is caused by a combination of eating too many calories overall and eating highly refined carbs and sugar which exacerbates the problems of a caloric imbalance almost exponentially. And I think it's wrong to tell people who are very probably insulin resistant that calories are calories. Carbs trigger specific reactions in the body and understanding that can really help someone who is struggling to lose weight through calories restriction alone.0 -
I do disagree with your first statement. If you eat a cookie, your insulin is going to "overreact". If you live off of cookies, but stay under a specific calorie goal, your insulin will still be crazy (and of course you will be malnourished but that is another topic). This is EXACTLY what Taubes spends way too much time explaining in "Why We Get Fat" regarding why mothers are obese in poor countries (I want to say Barbados or Jamaica, but I don't have the book to hand) while their children are underweight. The mothers and children are eating similarly but the mothers are insulin resistant after years of eating poor quality carbs.
Then you are disagreeing with the law of thermodynamics. Taubes is wrong, I hate to break it to you, and he has zero clinical research to support his claims which attempt to defy a physical law of nature. The only time insulin levels matter is when someone has a clinical condition such as insulin resistance. Regarding the general population, however, that is a small percentage.
Sounds like Taubes has some great correlations and zero clinical trials. What does that mean? Inconclusive. The correlations you are referring to - you can't draw up cause/effect from them. You can't say the diet is causing the lack of health, because for all you know they could simply be genetically predisposed due to previous generations. Look no further than the grandchildren of the generation that endured the Great Depression when famine and starvation was everywhere. There was a major increase in diabetes (and I'd imagine insulin resistance, though I don't know how well understood that was back then) for those grand children. It's no surprise to me that populations in countries that have been famished for generations upon generations experience abnormally high rates of insulin resistance. To say it's the refined carbs that cause that, however, is not a proper approach.
I feel you may have some potential misinterpretations about insulin (not saying that to pick on you). Consider reading the following, which is an article based on the peer-reviewed, empirical research surrounding insulin: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Too many calories isn't the only piece of the puzzle - but it is the NECESSARY piece of the puzzle. A hypercaloric diet with excess carbs will be different than one that has excess dietary fat. The thing is, and this is most important, is that for either one of these diets to have a negative impact, it MUST be hypercaloric UNLESS you have a clinical condition to begin with that somehow removes the necessity for a hypercaloric diet.Again, I don't disagree that too many calories is a problem. I don't think it's the only piece of the puzzle - AT ALL. I believe the American obesity epidemic is caused by a combination of eating too many calories overall and eating highly refined carbs and sugar which exacerbates the problems of a caloric imbalance almost exponentially. And I think it's wrong to tell people who are very probably insulin resistant that calories are calories. Carbs trigger specific reactions in the body and understanding that can really help someone who is struggling to lose weight through calories restriction alone.
I never told people who are insulin resistant that calories are calories, in fact I think I've made it perfectly clear that my stance regarding a diet is not applicable to those with clinical conditions such as insulin resistance.0 -
I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss0
-
Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss
Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.0 -
This.
Conservation of Energy: No matter can be created nor destroyed.
Always get lulz from the carbophobes and their insulin fairy who completely ignore the body's state of energy insufficiency (AMP, ADP, etc) where the appropriate enzymes are phosphorylated, specifically ACP, which curtails lipid biosynthesis. Furthermore, malonyl-coa is inhibited which allows the carnitine shuttle to transport long-chain fatty acids into the mitochondria for beta-oxidation.
Moral of story: Calories in versus Calories out. The more complicated an individual makes it, the worse it is for them and they usually end up overweight.
brb enjoying Chipotle for lunch with the white rice, tortilla,and sour cream. Slid perfectly in my macros today
I have no idea which metabolic pathway you're referring to there but when I took biochemistry my professor hammered home over and over that insulin is the big boy, the bully, the boss of metabolic regulation. We weren't even talking about diets, just in general. Insulin is incredibly important to the way our bodies process what we eat. Our bodies are complicated, it isn't us making them out to be complicated. The pathway you just described only illustrates that. I'll say it again: calories in/calories out is important, but it's not the whole story.
I hope you enjoyed your Chipotle as much as I enjoyed my spicy thai chicken lettuce wraps. Yum.
Catecholamines trump anything in regards to metabolism. Yes, insulin is important, but the bulk of metabolism depends on the phosphorlyation state of a myriad of enzymes which is triggered by an energy insufficient state. If you aren't a diabetic, want to keep it simple, then don't worry about carbs. Keep it simple, calories in versus calories out. America has gotten fat on the low-fat craze and it will continue to be fat during the low-carb craze, because they ignore calories in versus calories out.
Furthermore, not only are carbs protein sparring, the brains much preferred fuel is glucose. If you enjoy brain fog and fatigue to lose weight, by all means go for it.0 -
Furthermore, not only are carbs protein sparring, the brains much preferred fuel is glucose. If you enjoy brain fog and fatigue to lose weight, by all means go for it.
After 1.5 years of eating under 100g daily I haven't had that yet, but I'll sure let you know when I do.0 -
Furthermore, not only are carbs protein sparring, the brains much preferred fuel is glucose. If you enjoy brain fog and fatigue to lose weight, by all means go for it.
After 1.5 years of eating under 100g daily I haven't had that yet, but I'll sure let you know when I do.
Thanks, but I actually have to use my mind. Good luck w/that. BTW - emaciated isn't hot.0 -
Furthermore, not only are carbs protein sparring, the brains much preferred fuel is glucose. If you enjoy brain fog and fatigue to lose weight, by all means go for it.
After 1.5 years of eating under 100g daily I haven't had that yet, but I'll sure let you know when I do.
Thanks, but I actually have to use my mind. Good luck w/that. BTW - emaciated isn't hot.
131 pounds and 5 foot tall isn't emaciated there, Sherlock.0 -
Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss
Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.
I noticed that you often quote the site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com by Lyle McDonald to prove you're statements. Here is what Lyle has to say regarding low carb dieting...
"And the commonality in all of those conditions is not the presence or absence of dietary fat (diets 1 and 3 have little or no dietary fat, diet 2 has quite a bit). Rather, it’s the lack of dietary carbohydrates. Which, based on what we know about how the body determines fuel usage makes sense. As I discussed in the linked articles above, when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs (and less fat); eat fewer carbs and you burn fewer carbs (and more fat). Which means that in all three conditions above it’s the absence of dietary carbohydrates driving the increase in fat burning, not the presence of dietary fat.
Which isn’t to say that increasing dietary fat intake under some conditions can’t have benefits (such as increased fullness, food enjoyment or flexibility, limiting the daily deficit to moderate levels if that’s the goal, etc.) which are discussed in other articles on the site (I’d suggest the Comparing the Diets series for an overview of different dietary approaches). It’s simply that increasing fat burning per se simply isn’t one of them; rather, that’s accomplished by reducing carbohydrates and total caloric intake."
This appears to completely contradict what you just said. How do you explain this?0 -
The correlations you are referring to - you can't draw up cause/effect from them. You can't say the diet is causing the lack of health, because for all you know they could simply be genetically predisposed due to previous generations. Look no further than the grandchildren of the generation that endured the Great Depression when famine and starvation was everywhere. There was a major increase in diabetes (and I'd imagine insulin resistance, though I don't know how well understood that was back then) for those grand children. It's no surprise to me that populations in countries that have been famished for generations upon generations experience abnormally high rates of insulin resistance. To say it's the refined carbs that cause that, however, is not a proper approach.
You're wrong. Taubes has page after page of citing in "Good Calories, Bad Calories". He is an award winning science writer, not a researcher. Therefore, he is using cause/effect to bring up questions that need to be answered. He isn't claiming it is a replacement for research. He goes through all of your concerns in both books. Maybe you should actually read them if you're going to be so outspokenly against them?I feel you may have some potential misinterpretations about insulin (not saying that to pick on you). Consider reading the following, which is an article based on the peer-reviewed, empirical research surrounding insulin: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Respectfully, I don't think I do have misinterpretations about insulin. I think that this topic is not well understood and I don't claim expertise. I actually met a diabetes researcher last night who is studying the effects of insulin on epithelial cells. It was a really interesting conversation and what I got from it most of all is that scientists are still struggling to really understand what insulin does throughout the body.Too many calories isn't the only piece of the puzzle - but it is the NECESSARY piece of the puzzle. A hypercaloric diet with excess carbs will be different than one that has excess dietary fat. The thing is, and this is most important, is that for either one of these diets to have a negative impact, it MUST be hypercaloric UNLESS you have a clinical condition to begin with that somehow removes the necessity for a hypercaloric diet.
I never told people who are insulin resistant that calories are calories, in fact I think I've made it perfectly clear that my stance regarding a diet is not applicable to those with clinical conditions such as insulin resistance.
What you're saying just isn't true. You don't need to have a condition for insulin to be a concern. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
I'll leave you with this:
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
The graphic showing the growing numbers of obese Americans (that's obese not overweight) is startling. It isn't due to growing increases in caloric intake and chronic lazyness. It's due to the way we are eating, which is different from the way any humans have ever eaten. Not to go all conspiracy-theorist, but Michael Pollen's excellent book "Omnivore's Dilemma" tracks the history of replacing real food with processed food in this country, how our laws have changed and how it is directly tied to our surplus production of grains, specifically corn. I really can't recommend this book enough.
I think if you grow up eating whole foods, including carbs, then you will probably be fine. But for those of us who grew up in the 70s and beyond, we have been on a steady diet of refined, processed carbs with higher calories and the obesity epidemic is the result.0 -
I think there's some misunderstanding on basic physiology regarding nutrition. Here's a basic understanding of what our bodies would do if we ate a diet SOLELY in a single macronutrient. Let's assume that these are hypocaloric diets (a caloric deficit), so weight loss is the end goal - the person's maintenance is 2,500 calories, so they are eating 2,000 calories for a 500 calorie deficit:
Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss
Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.
I noticed that you often quote the site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com by Lyle McDonald to prove you're statements. Here is what Lyle has to say regarding low carb dieting...
"And the commonality in all of those conditions is not the presence or absence of dietary fat (diets 1 and 3 have little or no dietary fat, diet 2 has quite a bit). Rather, it’s the lack of dietary carbohydrates. Which, based on what we know about how the body determines fuel usage makes sense. As I discussed in the linked articles above, when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs (and less fat); eat fewer carbs and you burn fewer carbs (and more fat). Which means that in all three conditions above it’s the absence of dietary carbohydrates driving the increase in fat burning, not the presence of dietary fat.
Which isn’t to say that increasing dietary fat intake under some conditions can’t have benefits (such as increased fullness, food enjoyment or flexibility, limiting the daily deficit to moderate levels if that’s the goal, etc.) which are discussed in other articles on the site (I’d suggest the Comparing the Diets series for an overview of different dietary approaches). It’s simply that increasing fat burning per se simply isn’t one of them; rather, that’s accomplished by reducing carbohydrates and total caloric intake."
Granted, he is talking specifically about fat loss here and not overall weight loss. I know you have said you are only talking about weight loss but the OP did say they were interested in dropping pounds AND toning up. I'm sure the majority of us, when we say we want to lose weight are talking about fat, so this is relevant.
-Diet in pure carbs = less instances of fat gain throughout the day as carbs are stored as glycogen = less direct fat burn as the body has to burn through the dietary carbs first. Eat 2,000 calories of carbs, burn those 2,000 calories of carbs over the course of the day, THEN fat burn will occur as your body has no more glucose to use as energy, which will result in 500 calories from stored fat being used as energy.
-Diet in pure protein = very similar to carbs except for amino acids rather than glucose/fructose/etc.
-Diet in pure dietary fat = more instances of fat gain throughout the day as dietary fat is stored as body fat = more fat burn as the body has no dietary glucose/amino acids to burn. Eat 2,000 calories in fat, store 2,000 calories in fat, burn those 2,000 calories in fat throughout the day, compensate the additional 500 calories from stored fat as you are under maintenance.
In all instances, regardless of the macronutrient composition, the body will still burn 500 calories of previously stored body fat throughout the day.
Lyle talks about this, actually. I'll try and find the link as he can explain it better than I. Give me some time to peruse the site.0 -
Furthermore, not only are carbs protein sparring, the brains much preferred fuel is glucose. If you enjoy brain fog and fatigue to lose weight, by all means go for it.After 1.5 years of eating under 100g daily I haven't had that yet, but I'll sure let you know when I do.Thanks, but I actually have to use my mind. Good luck w/that. BTW - emaciated isn't hot.
First you call her stupid, then you call her unattractive. You're really bringing the tone of the conversation up, aren't you? Is this childish attitude a result of a problem in YOUR diet? I think you need more sugar.0 -
Among all of this, can you show me a single shred of evidence that says people who watch calories, moderate macronutrients, and lead a remotely active lifestyle (or don't, even, so long as they maintain a healthy level of calories) have to worry about insulin outside of those who are insulin resistant?The correlations you are referring to - you can't draw up cause/effect from them. You can't say the diet is causing the lack of health, because for all you know they could simply be genetically predisposed due to previous generations. Look no further than the grandchildren of the generation that endured the Great Depression when famine and starvation was everywhere. There was a major increase in diabetes (and I'd imagine insulin resistance, though I don't know how well understood that was back then) for those grand children. It's no surprise to me that populations in countries that have been famished for generations upon generations experience abnormally high rates of insulin resistance. To say it's the refined carbs that cause that, however, is not a proper approach.
You're wrong. Taubes has page after page of citing in "Good Calories, Bad Calories". He is an award winning science writer, not a researcher. Therefore, he is using cause/effect to bring up questions that need to be answered. He isn't claiming it is a replacement for research. He goes through all of your concerns in both books. Maybe you should actually read them if you're going to be so outspokenly against them?I feel you may have some potential misinterpretations about insulin (not saying that to pick on you). Consider reading the following, which is an article based on the peer-reviewed, empirical research surrounding insulin: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319
Respectfully, I don't think I do have misinterpretations about insulin. I think that this topic is not well understood and I don't claim expertise. I actually met a diabetes researcher last night who is studying the effects of insulin on epithelial cells. It was a really interesting conversation and what I got from it most of all is that scientists are still struggling to really understand what insulin does throughout the body.Too many calories isn't the only piece of the puzzle - but it is the NECESSARY piece of the puzzle. A hypercaloric diet with excess carbs will be different than one that has excess dietary fat. The thing is, and this is most important, is that for either one of these diets to have a negative impact, it MUST be hypercaloric UNLESS you have a clinical condition to begin with that somehow removes the necessity for a hypercaloric diet.
I never told people who are insulin resistant that calories are calories, in fact I think I've made it perfectly clear that my stance regarding a diet is not applicable to those with clinical conditions such as insulin resistance.
What you're saying just isn't true. You don't need to have a condition for insulin to be a concern. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
I'll leave you with this:
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
The graphic showing the growing numbers of obese Americans (that's obese not overweight) is startling. It isn't due to growing increases in caloric intake and chronic lazyness. It's due to the way we are eating, which is different from the way any humans have ever eaten. Not to go all conspiracy-theorist, but Michael Pollen's excellent book "Omnivore's Dilemma" tracks the history of replacing real food with processed food in this country, how our laws have changed and how it is directly tied to our surplus production of grains, specifically corn. I really can't recommend this book enough.
I think if you grow up eating whole foods, including carbs, then you will probably be fine. But for those of us who grew up in the 70s and beyond, we have been on a steady diet of refined, processed carbs with higher calories and the obesity epidemic is the result.
That is the information that we need to see. That is the information that research has not been able to supply, but the opposing side (which I stand for) has plenty of information saying non-chronic levels of insulin really mean nothing in the broad scheme of things. The link I provided is a support to that idea.
I don't need to read a book. Just cite me a study. If they exist, it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes.0 -
Chuck -
Here's a link to what I was referring to. It's a 4 part series, so whenever you have time. Although I can paraphrase one thing he says:
"I’ll say it again, for the slow of reading: none of the three diets described in this book is the ‘best’ across the board. Not high-carb, not moderate carb, not low-carb (so please quit calling me the keto guru). Put differently, I am absolutely NOT an advocate of a given dietary approach except inasmuch as it meets the needs of the individual. I’ll rant about this one last time in the next chapter."
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-part-1.html0 -
Oh come on, we all know all dietary studies are total crap unless they house, feed, and monitor the people themselves - which NO ONE does. People underestimate calories, over estimate exercise, and just plain lie. They drop out of diets, cheat on diets, and so on. Taubes cites studies that have been done on rats in which they were controlled in all aspects - the results were interesting but I have worked with rats enough in my own studies to know that rats aren't the same thing as people. Interesting none the less as we are both omnivores.
Reading a book takes longer than 5 minutes, but I really think it's worth it and the subject is important enough to spend your time on. I would recommend Omnivore's Dilema over Taubes, even though it's not a book about dieting or really about carbs specifically, more about the revolution are food has gone through since the 50s. That and Wendel Berry's essays on the loss of agrarian society. Yeah, I know this seemingly has nothing to do with insulin and sugar, but it's all tied together and I am a food geek.0 -
Chuck -
Here's a link to what I was referring to. It's a 4 part series, so whenever you have time. Although I can paraphrase one thing he says:
"I’ll say it again, for the slow of reading: none of the three diets described in this book is the ‘best’ across the board. Not high-carb, not moderate carb, not low-carb (so please quit calling me the keto guru). Put differently, I am absolutely NOT an advocate of a given dietary approach except inasmuch as it meets the needs of the individual. I’ll rant about this one last time in the next chapter."
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-part-1.html
Bookmarked. I am always in constant search of this....since one of the rebuttles is "Lyle clearly thinks that a low CHO is superior".
I will say that for someone that doesn't completely understand the way the body oxidizes nutrients, his statements can be taken in the sense that he believes that low carb has metabolic advantages.
Reps for link.
Waitwut?0 -
I think there's some misunderstanding on basic physiology regarding nutrition. Here's a basic understanding of what our bodies would do if we ate a diet SOLELY in a single macronutrient. Let's assume that these are hypocaloric diets (a caloric deficit), so weight loss is the end goal - the person's maintenance is 2,500 calories, so they are eating 2,000 calories for a 500 calorie deficit:
Excess weight lost in a low carb diet in the short term is due to water loss. A single carb carries 3-5g water, so naturally a low carb diet results in quicker weight loss, but not quicker FAT loss. Any additional weight lost was nothing more than water, which comes right back on upon assuming a more "normal" level of carbs again.I noticed there are lot of posts on this topic didnt get to read them all... But from my experience I had problems goin over my sugars from eating fruit, like grapes...a friend of mine suggesting eating fruits like berries which are much lower in sugar aslo increase you fiber intake which helps reduce your carb intake (carb intake -fiber intake= net carbs) ...Flat breads and sandwhich things are low in carbs... 97% free butter popcorn is actully high in fiber too! When I made those changes I noticed more weight loss
Any additional fat you lost came from a reduction in calories rather than a reduction in carbs assuming you are not insulin resistant.
I noticed that you often quote the site http://www.bodyrecomposition.com by Lyle McDonald to prove you're statements. Here is what Lyle has to say regarding low carb dieting...
"And the commonality in all of those conditions is not the presence or absence of dietary fat (diets 1 and 3 have little or no dietary fat, diet 2 has quite a bit). Rather, it’s the lack of dietary carbohydrates. Which, based on what we know about how the body determines fuel usage makes sense. As I discussed in the linked articles above, when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs (and less fat); eat fewer carbs and you burn fewer carbs (and more fat). Which means that in all three conditions above it’s the absence of dietary carbohydrates driving the increase in fat burning, not the presence of dietary fat.
Which isn’t to say that increasing dietary fat intake under some conditions can’t have benefits (such as increased fullness, food enjoyment or flexibility, limiting the daily deficit to moderate levels if that’s the goal, etc.) which are discussed in other articles on the site (I’d suggest the Comparing the Diets series for an overview of different dietary approaches). It’s simply that increasing fat burning per se simply isn’t one of them; rather, that’s accomplished by reducing carbohydrates and total caloric intake."
Granted, he is talking specifically about fat loss here and not overall weight loss. I know you have said you are only talking about weight loss but the OP did say they were interested in dropping pounds AND toning up. I'm sure the majority of us, when we say we want to lose weight are talking about fat, so this is relevant.
-Diet in pure carbs = less instances of fat gain throughout the day as carbs are stored as glycogen = less direct fat burn as the body has to burn through the dietary carbs first. Eat 2,000 calories of carbs, burn those 2,000 calories of carbs over the course of the day, THEN fat burn will occur as your body has no more glucose to use as energy, which will result in 500 calories from stored fat being used as energy.
-Diet in pure protein = very similar to carbs except for amino acids rather than glucose/fructose/etc.
-Diet in pure dietary fat = more instances of fat gain throughout the day as dietary fat is stored as body fat = more fat burn as the body has no dietary glucose/amino acids to burn. Eat 2,000 calories in fat, store 2,000 calories in fat, burn those 2,000 calories in fat throughout the day, compensate the additional 500 calories from stored fat as you are under maintenance.
In all instances, regardless of the macronutrient composition, the body will still burn 500 calories of previously stored body fat throughout the day.
Lyle talks about this, actually. I'll try and find the link as he can explain it better than I. Give me some time to peruse the site.
I have been reading his articles and I would admit that what he says is often confusing and he will not hesitate to attack anyone who doesn't understand him. I do find it interesting that one of his books promotes Ketosis, which is of course caused by ingesting low carbs.
Personally i need to read more of his articles before I decide if he is really knowledgeable or just wacky,lol.0 -
So you dismiss dozens upon dozens of dietary studies? Do you know what the law of large numbers is? I'd say it's relevant to the point you're making, which also kind of goes hand-in-hand with external validity. Fact is: what you are saying is not a justification to ignore the results that have been attained from possibly hundreds of studies.Oh come on, we all know all dietary studies are total crap unless they house, feed, and monitor the people themselves - which NO ONE does. People underestimate calories, over estimate exercise, and just plain lie. They drop out of diets, cheat on diets, and so on. Taubes cites studies that have been done on rats in which they were controlled in all aspects - the results were interesting but I have worked with rats enough in my own studies to know that rats aren't the same thing as people. Interesting none the less as we are both omnivores.
No, rats are not the same thing. The pathway that converts carbs to fat (de novo lipogenesis) is HIGHLY active in rats. It is NOT highly active in humans. Basing our understanding of carbs off of rat studies would be like basing out understanding of human muscle potential of researching gorillas in a weight room.
I'm telling you that mainstream anything is USUALLY the enemy to proper scientific research. I don't want to read a book because it's an indirect source. I don't want to watch a Youtube video, like Lustig's video on HFCS, because he left out key information in the data he reported. I want DIRECT sources. I want scientific research; empirical, peer-reviewed.Reading a book takes longer than 5 minutes, but I really think it's worth it and the subject is important enough to spend your time on. I would recommend Omnivore's Dilema over Taubes, even though it's not a book about dieting or really about carbs specifically, more about the revolution are food has gone through since the 50s. That and Wendel Berry's essays on the loss of agrarian society. Yeah, I know this seemingly has nothing to do with insulin and sugar, but it's all tied together and I am a food geek.
I appreciate your passion for learning about nutrition, but books are not your most reliable source of information. Scientific research is. Pubmed.com or Google Scholar far outweigh most any book on the market.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions