How and why carbs and a high carb intake will keep you fat!!

Options
1…1011131516

Replies

  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    I talked to my husband about this last night - he used to coach the Junior GB rowing squad and works in the cycling industry now, so definitely knows his stuff about sports performance and nutrition. He says 20% of your cals should come from protein, which is about in line with what MFP suggests automatically. Any more than that, even when training as an elite athlete, is unnecessary, as it will just be broken down and excreted as urea, making you need to pee more, therefore drink more. It's not actually good for you. The only exception is for serious body builders, who are doing major damage to their muscles on a regular basis with the aim of building them up bigger as they repair. Obviously protein is needed for that repair. In general, athletes should be having 3/4 complex carbs to 1/4 protein.

    This is also the ratio of carbs to protein in the most highly recommended (by sports nutritionists) sports recovery foods and shakes.

    It completely depends on your goals and what you want to accomplish. There's little that is a hard fast rule of what you should eat. However, for anybody doing any kind of strength training, construction / physical work, and definitely athletes 20% protein is way too low and most nutritionists that deal with athletes will stand behind that. 30% - 40% is more appropriate.
  • Chuckw40
    Chuckw40 Posts: 201
    Options
    I like what Dr. Doug McGuff ( Body By Science) teaches about all of this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzA-E8zb-Ds&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToGt_GYCUmY&feature=player_embedded

    Certified Clinical Nutritionist, Radhia Gleis, is awesome as well. She has a 3 part video that explains the whole process of metabolism.

    http://youtu.be/SSLn0vGh5ZQ
    http://youtu.be/zc3Y4rd6Xq0
    http://youtu.be/9tajNj1rL5k

    Can't we all just get along....lol :wink:

    Thanks for posting those links, I've been hearing about Body by Science and just haven't taken the time to look it up yet, I will be getting his book now for sure.

    I watched her videos and can't believe you would trust a certified clinical nutricianist over some anonymous guy on the internet.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Options
    These two studies demonstrate that there is no metabolic advantage in low-carb diets. Sorry if these have been posted before..

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999

    From a quick review this study was on normal weight people. So what is the relevance to the subject at hand?
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Options
    These two studies demonstrate that there is no metabolic advantage in low-carb diets. Sorry if these have been posted before..

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

    Here is a study which shows the tendency for obese subjects on low-fat diets to underestimate calories consumed, but subjects on low-carb diets do not... People who believe that carbs trump calories when it comes to weight loss tend to ignore these types of studies...or discount the well documented tendency for subjects to underreport calories.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15598683

    With that said, I do believe there IS a metabolic advantage to low carb diets for people who are insulin resistant (i.e., the majority of people who are overweight and a handful of people at normal weights). I'm 5'9" and 155 lbs but show all the symptoms of being sensitive to carbs.....which is why I try to get a minimum of 150 grams of protein per day.

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285
    This one is a bit more interesting, however, even a science idiot like myself can see what is wrong with this study. I will let the science expert here, tell you what the holes are in this one. I do like this quote below, seems this guy is easily swayed.
    I attempted to answer this question with a meta-analysis that I published back in 2006… I concluded that a very low carbohydrate intake (low enough to cause ketosis) provided a metabolic advantage, independent of protein intake.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    I talked to my husband about this last night - he used to coach the Junior GB rowing squad and works in the cycling industry now, so definitely knows his stuff about sports performance and nutrition. He says 20% of your cals should come from protein, which is about in line with what MFP suggests automatically. Any more than that, even when training as an elite athlete, is unnecessary, as it will just be broken down and excreted as urea, making you need to pee more, therefore drink more. It's not actually good for you. The only exception is for serious body builders, who are doing major damage to their muscles on a regular basis with the aim of building them up bigger as they repair. Obviously protein is needed for that repair. In general, athletes should be having 3/4 complex carbs to 1/4 protein.

    This is also the ratio of carbs to protein in the most highly recommended (by sports nutritionists) sports recovery foods and shakes.

    It completely depends on your goals and what you want to accomplish. There's little that is a hard fast rule of what you should eat. However, for anybody doing any kind of strength training, construction / physical work, and definitely athletes 20% protein is way too low and most nutritionists that deal with athletes will stand behind that. 30% - 40% is more appropriate.

    No, it's really not. As I said my husband has worked with the GB rowing and cycling squads and 20% of calories from protein is what is recommended for endurance athletes. It is a total myth that we need more than that.
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    These two studies demonstrate that there is no metabolic advantage in low-carb diets. Sorry if these have been posted before..

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999

    From a quick review this study was on normal weight people. So what is the relevance to the subject at hand?

    Can't normal weight people want to lose fat too?
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Options
    These two studies demonstrate that there is no metabolic advantage in low-carb diets. Sorry if these have been posted before..

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999

    http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285

    Here is a study which shows the tendency for obese subjects on low-fat diets to underestimate calories consumed, but subjects on low-carb diets do not... People who believe that carbs trump calories when it comes to weight loss tend to ignore these types of studies...or discount the well documented tendency for subjects to underreport calories.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15598683

    With that said, I do believe there IS a metabolic advantage to low carb diets for people who are insulin resistant (i.e., the majority of people who are overweight and a handful of people at normal weights). I'm 5'9" and 155 lbs but show all the symptoms of being sensitive to carbs.....which is why I try to get a minimum of 150 grams of protein per day.


    I like this last link.
    Forty women completed the trial. The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight (9.79 +/- 0.71 vs. 6.14 +/- 0.91 kg; P < 0.05) and more body fat…… These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Options
    These two studies demonstrate that there is no metabolic advantage in low-carb diets. Sorry if these have been posted before..

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999

    From a quick review this study was on normal weight people. So what is the relevance to the subject at hand?

    Can't normal weight people want to lose fat too?

    I suppose they could,,,, I guess some over weight people might want to gain weight too.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Options
    I like what Dr. Doug McGuff ( Body By Science) teaches about all of this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzA-E8zb-Ds&amp;feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToGt_GYCUmY&amp;feature=player_embedded

    Certified Clinical Nutritionist, Radhia Gleis, is awesome as well. She has a 3 part video that explains the whole process of metabolism.

    http://youtu.be/SSLn0vGh5ZQ
    http://youtu.be/zc3Y4rd6Xq0
    http://youtu.be/9tajNj1rL5k

    Can't we all just get along....lol :wink:

    Thanks for posting those links, I've been hearing about Body by Science and just haven't taken the time to look it up yet, I will be getting his book now for sure.

    I watched her videos and can't believe you would trust a certified clinical nutricianist over some anonymous guy on the internet.

    I know, right? What was I thinking?
  • Chuckw40
    Chuckw40 Posts: 201
    Options
    The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.

    This is the perfect example of what i am talking about. Anytime the results are not what they expected they automatically blame it on the people in the study.

    " Hey Tom, these results are not at all what we expected and don't follow our theory on how all this stuff works"
    "No problem Joe, I'm sure we are still completely right, blame it on the people in the study"
    "But Tom, why would only the people on the low fat diet underreport food consumption?"
    "Look Joe, if you want to continue receiving that grant money you better stop asking so many questions."
  • Teemo
    Teemo Posts: 338
    Options
    This, freerange, is what we call a "confounding variable."

    Now where did that Teemo go, and his rebuke for being condescending? I’m sure he will be along soon to straighten you out :wink: And by we do you mean those that think they are smarter than everyone else, or do you mean people that see life through the black and white lens of scientific method?

    My rebuke, as you put it, was for you referring to the null hypothesis as the null hippopotamus; as if your mockery of the term itself somehow calls into question the validity of the scientific process.

    Think about it.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Options
    This, freerange, is what we call a "confounding variable."

    Now where did that Teemo go, and his rebuke for being condescending? I’m sure he will be along soon to straighten you out :wink: And by we do you mean those that think they are smarter than everyone else, or do you mean people that see life through the black and white lens of scientific method?

    My rebuke, as you put it, was for you referring to the null hypothesis as the null hippopotamus; as if your mockery of the term itself somehow calls into question the validity of the scientific process.

    Think about it.

    I understand why you aimed it at me, I mistakenly assumed it was the condescending remark that offended you, not just the person making it. My apologies for thinking it wasn’t personal with you. :wink:

    Think about that.
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    I can't believe you are still arguing with this person, you can NEVER win. The evidence he requires is nearly impossible to produce because you can't control all the variables. People lie, make mistakes, cheat, etc...

    Mynameisuntz, right or wrong, it seems to me your only motivation for being on this site is to tell people how wrong they are. I don't have any peer reviewed studies to prove it though.
    Everyone should have high standards for proof. We're talking about our health, our diets, our life. If someone is going to tell me low carb is THE best, they better have undeniable proof. You make me sound like a crazy person for having set my bar really high when it comes to defining what is true and what is not proven to be true.

    The thing you have to understand is that studies HAVE been done pretty well which do compare low carb to moderate-high carb, and guess what, THERE WERE NO LONG-TERM DIFFERENCES? Thus if you want to prove those studies wrong, you have to do an excellent job in the structure of the study. Problem with that?
    I watched her videos and can't believe you would trust a certified clinical nutricianist over some anonymous guy on the internet.
    Very few nutritionists actually have a pubmed subscription, which should be a requirement of the job. Many of them are just as persuaded by the media interpretation of mainstread fad diets. It's sad. Hence Alan Aragon being one of the most well-known and respected nutritionists in the USA.

    Want to hear his input on low carb? He's a certified nutritionist with an MA. I'm vocalizing his beliefs, just so you know. I'm merely the medium. Will you put more credit in the research I present and critique now?
    This is the perfect example of what i am talking about. Anytime the results are not what they expected they automatically blame it on the people in the study.
    I'm willing to guess that 90% of all long-term low carb studies have shown that low carb is NOT better than moderate carb; even when the researchers themselves control the food intake.

    When one goes against the grain, THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES, WITHIN THE DISCUSSION SECTION, WILL OFFER THEIR INPUT ON THEIR OWN STUDY'S LIMITATIONS AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THOSE LIMITATIONS. What you are referring to as "blame" is what the researchers of their own study say. Every study is critiqued for limitations. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. That is part of the scientific process. Do you know why? So that when the next researcher picks up that study and says, "let's replicate this and try to establish some external validity," they can improve by trying to fix those limitations.

    And guess what? Since those limitations have been fixed in other studies, guess what the results have been? Go on, guess. That's right: no significant changes in body composition from a long-term carb diet. As I've posted evidence of this already.
  • Chuckw40
    Chuckw40 Posts: 201
    Options
    Very few nutritionists actually have a pubmed subscription, which should be a requirement of the job.

    I am going to have to ask for some proof to back up that statement.
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    Very few nutritionists actually have a pubmed subscription, which should be a requirement of the job.

    I am going to have to ask for some proof to back up that statement.
    Good call. TOTALLY CAUGHT MY BLUFF.

    I'll rephrase by saying you are not required to stay up to date on newly published scientific articles as a nutritionist. You receive your certification, and you're done. You don't have to know how to critique a scientific article, you don't have to stay up to date on literature, you don't need a subscription to any of the major scientific publication sites. It's, quite frankly, backward thinking. As if what you learned in the textbook while taking courses is all the nutrition community will ever have to know for the rest of their careers.

    And in my anecdotal experience, I have seen lots of nutritionists making claims about fad diets. How many nutritionists are still scared of saturated fat? Take a guess. I'd love to see how many nutritionists still believe it causes CVD.

    THIS is the reason why Alan Aragon is the man. You should consider purchasing his research review subscription if you want to see how nutrition should be done by ALL nutritionists.
  • Chuckw40
    Chuckw40 Posts: 201
    Options
    Very few nutritionists actually have a pubmed subscription, which should be a requirement of the job.

    I am going to have to ask for some proof to back up that statement.
    Good call. TOTALLY CAUGHT MY BLUFF.

    I'll rephrase by saying you are not required to stay up to date on newly published scientific articles as a nutritionist. You receive your certification, and you're done. You don't have to know how to critique a scientific article, you don't have to stay up to date on literature, you don't need a subscription to any of the major scientific publication sites. It's, quite frankly, backward thinking. As if what you learned in the textbook while taking courses is all the nutrition community will ever have to know for the rest of their careers.

    And in my anecdotal experience, I have seen lots of nutritionists making claims about fad diets. How many nutritionists are still scared of saturated fat? Take a guess. I'd love to see how many nutritionists still believe it causes CVD.

    THIS is the reason why Alan Aragon is the man. You should consider purchasing his research review subscription if you want to see how nutrition should be done by ALL nutritionists.

    Lol, I thought that was a strange statement for someone like you to make.

    Anyway, I totaly agree with you about everything you just said. Except for the part about Alan Aragon because I have not read any of his work yet. I plan to do so when I am not slacking off at work by posting on this forum :noway:
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    Lol, I thought that was a strange statement for someone like you to make.

    Anyway, I totaly agree with you about everything you just said. Except for the part about Alan Aragon because I have not read any of his work yet. I plan to do so when I am not slacking off at work by posting on this forum :noway:
    It's the same thing as doctors not being forced to learn about nutrition. I should have been more clear, and I was undoubtedly wrong in making such a general statement. Could have worded it better!

    http://user210805.websitewizard.com/files/unprotected/AARR-Jan-2008.pdf

    That's what he releases once a month if you subscribe to his research review. $10/month to be a member, and once you're a member you have unlimited access to everything he has already written and critiqued for the last 2.5 years - free to download all the files if you want. It is a goldmine in the nutrition/exercise community.
  • Teemo
    Teemo Posts: 338
    Options
    It's the same thing as doctors not being forced to learn about nutrition. I should have been more clear, and I was undoubtedly wrong in making such a general statement. Could have worded it better!

    I'm sure doctors do learn about nutrition. They're using textbooks published 20 years ago, it seems.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    Options
    Very few nutritionists actually have a pubmed subscription, which should be a requirement of the job. Many of them are just as persuaded by the media interpretation of mainstread fad diets. It's sad. Hence Alan Aragon being one of the most well-known and respected nutritionists in the USA.

    But how about this one? You have no idea do you? But wait I will be glad to help Alan Aragon, (your hero) has a Masters degree, now that is impressive,,,,,,,, wait for it,,,,,,,,,,, Doug McGuff,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, a,,,,,,,,,,,, MD,,,, now that should give you a chubby and I expect you to start throwing stones at Aragon, and start worshiping McGuff. [/quote]
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    But how about this one? You have no idea do you? But wait I will be glad to help Alan Aragon, (your hero) has a Masters degree, now that is impressive,,,,,,,, wait for it,,,,,,,,,,, Doug McGuff,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, a,,,,,,,,,,,, MD,,,, now that should give you a chubby and I expect you to start throwing stones at Aragon, and start worshiping McGuff.
    Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

    I was merely responding to Chuck sarcastically posing the question of who is worth listening to: me or a certified nutritionist. Hence me saying that my views coincide with a well-known nutritionist which reflects scientific literature. Credentials don't trump empirical evidence. The basis for my views, if we're getting down to the credentials of the matter, stem from a bunch of dudes with MDs vs. PhDs.

    You have to stop looking at me as the origin of my arguments. The origin of my arguments comes from research; I am merely presenting that research to you. I am the medium. If you want to argue my points, don't argue my credentials, argue the research.

    Saying, "I believe this guy because he has an MD" is wrong. That's appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy you are employing. You should believe someone based on the truth of their statement, and in the field we are debating, the truth of anyone's statement is determined by scientific research.

Categories