Carbs - friend or foe?

grimnir

Yeah, well there are good studies showing that there is statistically significant evidence pointing to the existence of precognition, but that just means people across a very large group are right about predicting the answer 52% of the time instead of 50%. That doesn't mean we should call up psychic hotlines to make investment decisions, which is essentially the sort of unsupportable leap you're condoning. There are any number of ways 'statistically significant' results can lead to incorrect conclusions, as is frequently the case with correlation vs causation errors. The history of nutritional science is LOADED with these kinds of problems, because we simply don't have a complete picture of how it works yet. You can talk all you want about how good the science is, but unless you're really digging into how each study is conducted, drawing conclusions based on the summaries is pretty well meaningless. If all you want to do is look at min/maxing diets according to what is slightly more effective for some non-existent 'average' person, your entire approach is absolutely guaranteed to be less effective than a personalized program.

What I'm getting at is you haven't even BEGUN to address the question of different people having distinctly different metabolic, and perhaps more importantly, different psychological responses to certain stimuli, based on an individual's particular biological and psychological factors. It seems like you want to think that the science gives clear answers that work for everyone, when even the most basic understanding of the subject will reveal the great range of personal experience, and that just because there's a study that shows a 7% increase of fat loss following whatever program it is you're hot for right now, it quite simply DOES NOT INDICATE that this works for everyone, because I can absolutely guarantee that whatever study you feel like pointing at will not have made a thorough analysis of the enormous range of different factors at work. In essence, your entire argument is based on a fundamental misapplication of statistics, and I have to think it's because you want to believe that the science is more conclusive and broad-reaching than it actually is.

I mean, if you really think I'm being emotional and irrational, why don't you explain how saying that people should start from a base of simple restriction of calories and then experiment to find the particular diet that makes them feel best while losing weight at a reasonable rate is in any way being emotional, or less effective as a method of weight loss? Because it is exceedingly obvious to me that the best diet is the one that you can stick to for as long as it takes to lose the weight, and that is necessarily going to be a personal decision. At most, getting into the fine details as you recommend is useful for looking at a diet that isn't working or has stopped working. It's not important for 90% of us.

ladyhawk00

Ok, I've spent a great deal of time cleaning up this thread, as I believe it has some good information/debate. Can we please remember to follow forum rules?

4) Do not attack/slam/insult other users. The forums are here so that members can help support one another. Attacks or insults against each other takes away from the supportive atmosphere and will not be tolerated. You can discuss the message or topic, but not the messenger - NO EXCEPTIONS. If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, YOU will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself, defending a friend, etc. are NOT excuses. Violations of this rule are taken very seriously and may result in being banned without warning! If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

There is never a need for insults or belittling another person on the forums. Debate is encouraged, but keep it respectful and on topic at all times.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator

One more reminder to keep it respectful at all times. If there continue to be attacks and insults, we'll have to lock/remove the thread, and we really prefer not to do that. Feel free to voice opinions, discuss, debate and disagree about the topic at hand - but keep the commentary about other users and your opinions of them to yourself.

Thank you.

DBabbit

Sigh, a lot of misinformation in there, BDabbit.

Did you really say that you HAVE to eat low carb to lose weight?

Please point out WHAT that misinformation is. "a lot" just doesn't make things clear.

Saying you have to lower carbs to lose weight?

If you are referring to the statement, "Lowering your carbs are necessary to help you lose weight. You do want to eat some, but in the form of low carbs (green leafy vegetables and low-carb fruit) so that you can continue to eat the necessary vitamins and minerals your body needs." That is exactly what I'm saying.

Perhaps I should have added that unless the OP was thinking about competing in a strenuous exercise such as racing, or working at bodybuilding, where she would need the addition of simple sugars immediately afterwards, then a high carb diet is not conducive to weight loss, nor to good health.

Note that I did not say she needed to avoid carbs, as that would not be a healthy way of eating.

RangerSteve

Yeah, well there are good studies showing that there is statistically significant evidence pointing to the existence of precognition, but that just means people across a very large group are right about predicting the answer 52% of the time instead of 50%. That doesn't mean we should call up psychic hotlines to make investment decisions, which is essentially the sort of unsupportable leap you're condoning. There are any number of ways 'statistically significant' results can lead to incorrect conclusions, as is frequently the case with correlation vs causation errors. The history of nutritional science is LOADED with these kinds of problems, because we simply don't have a complete picture of how it works yet. You can talk all you want about how good the science is, but unless you're really digging into how each study is conducted, drawing conclusions based on the summaries is pretty well meaningless. If all you want to do is look at min/maxing diets according to what is slightly more effective for some non-existent 'average' person, your entire approach is absolutely guaranteed to be less effective than a personalized program.

What I'm getting at is you haven't even BEGUN to address the question of different people having distinctly different metabolic, and perhaps more importantly, different psychological responses to certain stimuli, based on an individual's particular biological and psychological factors. It seems like you want to think that the science gives clear answers that work for everyone, when even the most basic understanding of the subject will reveal the great range of personal experience, and that just because there's a study that shows a 7% increase of fat loss following whatever program it is you're hot for right now, it quite simply DOES NOT INDICATE that this works for everyone, because I can absolutely guarantee that whatever study you feel like pointing at will not have made a thorough analysis of the enormous range of different factors at work. In essence, your entire argument is based on a fundamental misapplication of statistics, and I have to think it's because you want to believe that the science is more conclusive and broad-reaching than it actually is.

I mean, if you really think I'm being emotional and irrational, why don't you explain how saying that people should start from a base of simple restriction of calories and then experiment to find the particular diet that makes them feel best while losing weight at a reasonable rate is in any way being emotional, or less effective as a method of weight loss? Because it is exceedingly obvious to me that the best diet is the one that you can stick to for as long as it takes to lose the weight, and that is necessarily going to be a personal decision. At most, getting into the fine details as you recommend is useful for looking at a diet that isn't working or has stopped working. It's not important for 90% of us.

Strawman argument.

Look man, I'm really not trying to be rude here. I'm sure you're a smart guy and I've already been getting warnings that even using the phrase "logical fallacy" is somehow mean so I'll try and give it a rest. Just stop posting things that don't have to do with what was being discussed.

No one is arguing that psychological aspects and different metabolic aspects don't play a factor in diet and health in general. However, unless you have blood work done that shows something as a condition (hypothyroidism, low testosterone, etc) then it shouldn't be taken into account.

Other than that, I'm not really going to respond much to the rest of your post. You're saying that because statistics and studies are imperfect, we should not follow their results. Instead, we're supposed to follow the results of people who say "this worked for me, you should therefore do it" as if that is somehow better. No. Just plain....NO. We go with the best scientific approach at the time and that's how it works. That's how all sports nutritionists operate, all exercise physiologists operate and all those who are invested in the scientific community operate. It has nothing to do with my ego, your ego or anyone else. It has to do with a scientific approach to statements such as those seen in this thread ("carbs are essential" etc etc)

So, until peer reviewed and control group studies are presented to prove what I say wrong, I will call out mis-information as I see it. If you don't appreciate that, I suggest you take it up with the numerous organizations who fund studies to further advance our knowledge of the subject. Thanks.

hpsnickers1

Ok, I've spent a great deal of time cleaning up this thread, as I believe it has some good information/debate. Can we please remember to follow forum rules?

4) Do not attack/slam/insult other users. The forums are here so that members can help support one another. Attacks or insults against each other takes away from the supportive atmosphere and will not be tolerated. You can discuss the message or topic, but not the messenger - NO EXCEPTIONS. If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, YOU will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself, defending a friend, etc. are NOT excuses. Violations of this rule are taken very seriously and may result in being banned without warning! If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

There is never a need for insults or belittling another person on the forums. Debate is encouraged, but keep it respectful and on topic at all times.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator

Thank you.

mynameisuntz

Sigh, a lot of misinformation in there, BDabbit.

Did you really say that you HAVE to eat low carb to lose weight?

Please point out WHAT that misinformation is. "a lot" just doesn't make things clear.

Saying you have to lower carbs to lose weight?

If you are referring to the statement, "Lowering your carbs are necessary to help you lose weight. You do want to eat some, but in the form of low carbs (green leafy vegetables and low-carb fruit) so that you can continue to eat the necessary vitamins and minerals your body needs." That is exactly what I'm saying.

Perhaps I should have added that unless the OP was thinking about competing in a strenuous exercise such as racing, or working at bodybuilding, where she would need the addition of simple sugars immediately afterwards, then a high carb diet is not conducive to weight loss, nor to good health.

Note that I did not say she needed to avoid carbs, as that would not be a healthy way of eating.

If your caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and you eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, you would not gain weight.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

MissKim

Processed carbs=bad
Natural carbs found in nature=good


too much of anything=bad

MissKim

also depends what your goals are...just to lose weight?? then just eat the calories set for you by mfp and you'll lose some weight, regardless of where you get those calories.

if your goals are to lose bodyfat, improve health, reverse diseases, live a healthy lifestyle, then I would recommend doing lots of research on the macronutrients and learn what happens in your body with the different things you put in it. quality does matter when it comes to health.

mynameisnutz

also depends what your goals are...just to lose weight?? then just eat the calories set for you by mfp and you'll lose some weight, regardless of where you get those calories.

if your goals are to lose bodyfat, improve health, reverse diseases, live a healthy lifestyle, then I would recommend doing lots of research on the macronutrients and learn what happens in your body with the different things you put in it. quality does matter when it comes to health.

Amen.

DBabbit

Sigh, a lot of misinformation in there, BDabbit.

Did you really say that you HAVE to eat low carb to lose weight?

Please point out WHAT that misinformation is. "a lot" just doesn't make things clear.

Saying you have to lower carbs to lose weight?

If you are referring to the statement, "Lowering your carbs are necessary to help you lose weight. You do want to eat some, but in the form of low carbs (green leafy vegetables and low-carb fruit) so that you can continue to eat the necessary vitamins and minerals your body needs." That is exactly what I'm saying.

Perhaps I should have added that unless the OP was thinking about competing in a strenuous exercise such as racing, or working at bodybuilding, where she would need the addition of simple sugars immediately afterwards, then a high carb diet is not conducive to weight loss, nor to good health.

Note that I did not say she needed to avoid carbs, as that would not be a healthy way of eating.

If your caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and you eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, you would not gain weight.

Do you agree or disagree with that?

They might see a loss in weight, but unless they are doing very high amounts of weightlifting/bodybuilding, they are not going to be healthy. And before you say, "AHA, I'M RIGHT," think about this. Type 2 Diabetics would drop dead with that much sugar in their system. Besides, a sugar high has been proven time and again to create a high energy rush followed by a period of crashing. You cannot eat like that and maintain a healthy body, which is what HEALTHY nutrition is all about. If all you ate were Snicker's Bars, and you maintained a calorie deficit, you might lose weight, but you aren't going to be healthy if you keep it up.

mynameisuntz

They might see a loss in weight, but unless they are doing very high amounts of weightlifting/bodybuilding, they are not going to be healthy. And before you say, "AHA, I'M RIGHT," think about this. Type 2 Diabetics would drop dead with that much sugar in their system. Besides, a sugar high has been proven time and again to create a high energy rush followed by a period of crashing. You cannot eat like that and maintain a healthy body, which is what HEALTHY nutrition is all about. If all you ate were Snicker's Bars, and you maintained a calorie deficit, you might lose weight, but you aren't going to be healthy if you keep it up.

Now let's say it's 400g of white rice with some vegetables in there. All carbs. Does that change your stance, or do you still think they won't be healthy? Not talking about people with type II diabetes. They have a clinical condition requiring special attention.

We're not talking about general health - your comment was solely in regards to weight loss, so that's what we're talking about.

400g carbs solely from white rice and some veggies which equates to a 1,600 calorie diet - do you think that would be a healthy diet, then?

chrisdavey

The above situtation would create weight loss not fat loss. Therefore, not recommended IMO.

CraftyGirl4

FRIEND! I love carbs and everyone needs them. Even people on a low-carb diet are eating carbs.

mynameisuntz

The above situtation would create weight loss not fat loss. Therefore, not recommended IMO.

It would still be predominately fat that is lost.

It's not what I would recommend for fat loss, either, but first she brought up weight loss and then she brought up general health, and so now I'm asking her a question in response to that. Is a diet of 1,600 calories, almost entirely carbs (300 - 400g carbs), unhealthy?

chrisdavey

The above situtation would create weight loss not fat loss. Therefore, not recommended IMO.

It would still be predominately fat that is lost.

Wouldn't this depend on a few things like exercise routine, current BF%, body type (endo, meso or ecto)

And healthy is in itself a subjective word. Some people would say a healthy diet would meet all the micronutrient RDI's, others focus on macro's, others focus on specifics (possibly medically related). How long is a piece of string thing.

mynameisuntz

Wouldn't this depend on a few things like exercise routine, current BF%, body type (endo, meso or ecto)

No, I don't believe so. Even in diets with poor macronutrient balance, it's still fat that is the major fuel source when compensating a caloric deficit - specifically a deficit that is not too steep. A high protein diet will increase the amount of fat that is used as fuel, indeed, but insufficient protein doesn't immediately mean you start losing all lean mass; it just reduces the amount of fat that gets lost per pound of body weight lost.

And healthy is in itself a subjective word. Some people would say a healthy diet would meet all the micronutrient RDI's, others focus on macro's, others focus on specifics (possibly medically related). How long is a piece of string thing.

Agreed - but I'm asking her. I think the basic markers of generally good health are pretty universally accepted. You don't have to bench press 2x your body weight and you don't have to run a marathon, but being free of CVD, cancer, general disability, etc. are pretty much a general consensus.

DBabbit

The above situtation would create weight loss not fat loss. Therefore, not recommended IMO.

It would still be predominately fat that is lost.

It's not what I would recommend for fat loss, either, but first she brought up weight loss and then she brought up general health, and so now I'm asking her a question in response to that. Is a diet of 1,600 calories, almost entirely carbs (300 - 400g carbs), unhealthy?

400g carbs solely from white rice and some veggies which equates to a 1,600 calorie diet - do you think that would be a healthy diet, then?

If you reread my first comment, I said my favorite meal was legumes and rice. Rice and beans create a complete protein, so even though the carb load is 37g and 42g respectively, there is some protein in white rice. NutritionData.com says white glutinous rice has 37g protein. I use red kidney beans, and they have 13g of protein. This is not an unhealthy diet, but you referred to eating 1600 calories in pure sugar here:

If your caloric maintenance is 2,000 calories and you eat 400g of pure sugar, which equates to 1,600 calories, you would not gain weight.

To answer this question, let's look at the two examples you gave.

1600 calories of pure sugar with a deficit of 500 calories.

Any sugar your body does not burn turns to fat. You may lose weight temporarily by restricting calories, but it will not last long, and you would basically have to starve yourself to keep up that kind of diet. As we all know, starvation mode, more properly known as "

For the sake of keeping things equal since we're only going to eat table sugar on this theorhetical diet.

Sugar, granulated [sucrose], 774 calories (per cup)
Protein: 0g
Total Carb: 200g
Dietary Fiber: 0g
Sugars: 200g

Your body turns any unused sugar to fat.


1600 calories of a complete protein meal (rice and beans - I'll use red kidney beans as an example) contains a 6.4 : 1.22 ratio of protein/carbs, or for simplicity's sake, 28 protein:116 carbs if my math is correct.

Rice (white, glutinous, cooked) 169 calories (per cup)
Protein: 4g
Total Carb: 37g
Dietary Fiber 2g
Sugars:

Beans (kidney, red, mature seeds, canned) 215 calories (per cup)
Protein: 13g
Total Carb: 42g
Dietary Fiber: 14g
Sugars: 5g


Total calories: 384
Total protein: 15g
Total carb: 79g
Total Dietary Fiber: 16g

Protein: 60 calories
Carbs: 316 calories


To answer your question regarding a diet of sugar O_0:

No, and that is your simple answer. You are not going to be healthy, you will crash and burn more often than not. Where would you get the energy you needed after you've crashed to do the things you need to do - like exercise? You will not be able to maintian eating only sugar as your main source of energy to lose weight, and then maintain it if you want a healthy body. Furthermore, you would have to basically starve yourself to keep up with that kind of diet.

On a diet of rice and red kidney beans:

Yes - which I believe is the answer you're looking for, as it contains both protein and carbs, which your body needs to function properly. Adding a little fat will help. And don't forget the exercise.

mynameisuntz

Any sugar your body does not burn turns to fat. You may lose weight temporarily by restricting calories, but it will not last long, and you would basically have to starve yourself to keep up that kind of diet.

Unused sugar is turned to fat? What about glycogen? Did you forget that carbs are stored as glycogen?

On a diet of rice and red kidney beans:

Yes - which I believe is the answer you're looking for, as it contains both protein and carbs, which your body needs to function properly. Adding a little fat will help. And don't forget the exercise.

I'm not talking about red kidney beans, though. I asked about white rice and vegetables, where there will be an overall lack of protein. The diet will be overwhelmingly carb-based.

In terms of weight loss, you said you have to lower carb intake. Why is this diet, even though the macronutrients are comparable, going to result in more weight loss than eating a diet with the same calories/macronutrients as pure sugar?

Not talking about general health - SOLELY talking about weight loss.

mynameisuntz

Double post.

aippolito1

Carbs are definitely my friend. I wouldn't get through my workouts without carbs beforehand. I don't stay full long enough if I eat very little carbs with my meals. You just have to make sure the carbs you're eating are good for you. I try not to eat too many white, simple carbs but I do love my steamed white rice. For pasta, I eat multigrain, bread is usually whole wheat or multigrain, I eat whole oats, but I also eat french bread which is white.