Carbs...Carbs...Carbs....OMG Carbs EVERY WHERE!!!!

mynameisuntz

From a physiological standpoint, assuming you are not insulin resistant or diabetic, there is no advantage to a low carb diet than a diet more moderate/high in carbs. However, if that's what you prefer to do, then do it. Experiment and see what works for you. But don't feel some sort of pressure to do it because you hear it's the best, as low carb is NOT the best for everyone.

mynameisuntz

Go to HULU or netflix and download or rent "FATHEAD" it will explain how carbs help/hurt our weight loss efforts.

Except ignore everything discussed when talking about insulin and carbs being converted the fat. Conveniently the filmmaker leaves out the disgustingly obvious axiom of human physiology that discusses how carbs are stored as glycogen before being stored as fat, yet he tries to tell viewers that carbs will be converted to fat almost immediately upon consumption. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

Elizabeth_C34

From a physiological standpoint, assuming you are not insulin resistant or diabetic, there is no advantage to a low carb diet than a diet more moderate/high in carbs. However, if that's what you prefer to do, then do it. Experiment and see what works for you. But don't feel some sort of pressure to do it because you hear it's the best, as low carb is NOT the best for everyone.

I agree with this. However, personally, I find a carb heavy diet for me was not good. I didn't feel full long enough and consistently went over my calorie limit every day. Cutting carbs is a great way for me to stay within my calorie limits and still eat a lot. That being said, I replaced a lot of my carb-heavy meals with veggies, meats, and other foods that make me feel fuller for longer.

Do what works for you, but consider lots of options. Weight loss is about calories in < calories out. Good health is about eating quality foods and being active. Find a balance between the two that works for you.

Chuckw40

Go to HULU or netflix and download or rent "FATHEAD" it will explain how carbs help/hurt our weight loss efforts.

Except ignore everything discussed when talking about insulin and carbs being converted the fat. Conveniently the filmmaker leaves out the disgustingly obvious axiom of human physiology that discusses how carbs are stored as glycogen before being stored as fat, yet he tries to tell viewers that carbs will be converted to fat almost immediately upon consumption. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

Isn't true though that only about 1200 calories worth of carbs are stored as glyogen? And only if the current stores have been used up?

mynameisuntz

Isn't true though that only about 1200 calories worth of carbs are stored as glyogen? And only if the current stores have been used up?

That's not *necessarily* true. The minimum capacity for glycogen storage I have ever heard of was 400g carbs which = 1,600 calories. And that was from a single study on older, obese women who I believe were post-menopausal.

Most studies out there show glycogen capacity to be more like ~1,200g carbs with the potential ability (based on various factors like standard diet/activity) to supercompensate an additional 500g. I'm willing to bet that the average number for glycogen storage, as a lowball estimate, is in the 800 - 1,000g carb range. Which equates to 3,200 - 4,000 calories worth of pure carbohydrates.

The other thing is when you eat a ton of carbs, like for carb-loading before an endurance event, your body will go into hyper-carb burning mode where it will burn through carbs at a significantly higher rate than usual. The idea of carbs turning into fat and subsequently stored as body fat is a very, very rare process outside of people who are obese and eat at drastically chronic caloric surpluses with lots of carbs. For most people reading this message, their bodies will rarely undergo de novo lipogenesis (DNL): the pathway that converts carbs to fat. It's a very inactive pathway in humans.

I would be happy to find studies on this, but this topic is more difficult to find reliable research on. I dug some up for a thread a week or two ago on this forum, maybe I can find that thread and just get the links from there.

stephiebabe44

3/4 cup serving of cooked steel cut oats is about 170 cal with 27g of carbs, complex carbs. You can always add cinnamon which is proven to help blood sugar levels keeping you fuller for longer or add protein powder. The important thing is to stay away from simple carbs (white bread, pasta etc) as they are the ones that will spike your blood sugar and make you crash.

It is all about moderation and making sure that you are getting your carbohydrates from the right sources. Carbs from an apple are slow releasing so they won't give you a huge energy hit all at once it will be a steady level of energy. However if you eat a banana you will get all the calories at once giving you an energy hit straight away which is why this is a great pre-workout snack. I think people are so obsessed with worrying about carbs that they forget we need them for us to sustain energy especially when working out. Try not to focus on it too much, as long your protein intake is also high and you are eating only complex carbs then it shouldn't be a worry.

clarissa2010

I know exactly what you mean... I tried a no carb diet but I just couldn't do it!
I really do love bread and cheese too much argh! xx

Teemo

200 Calories, somewhere along the way my doctor told me:

200 Calories for Breakfast
100 Calorie Snack
400 Calories for Lunch
100 Calorie Snack
600 Calories for Dinner

If you reverse this scenerio you will have the perfect days plan! Start out with 600 calories for breakfast! You can mix it up!

I would flip that around completely and make it (if you insist on having breakfast):

200 calories for breakfast
400 calories for lunch
800 calories for dinner
(100-200 calories before bed).

There's no real reason to be snacking, and for 100 calories any snack you have will just make you hungrier. Give yourself some time to adjust to it.

Using those same calorie limits, personally, I'd do:

0 calories for breakfast
400 calories for lunch
1000 calories for dinner
100-200 calories for bed

Chuckw40

Isn't true though that only about 1200 calories worth of carbs are stored as glyogen? And only if the current stores have been used up?

That's not *necessarily* true. The minimum capacity for glycogen storage I have ever heard of was 400g carbs which = 1,600 calories. And that was from a single study on older, obese women who I believe were post-menopausal.

Most studies out there show glycogen capacity to be more like ~1,200g carbs with the potential ability (based on various factors like standard diet/activity) to supercompensate an additional 500g. I'm willing to bet that the average number for glycogen storage, as a lowball estimate, is in the 800 - 1,000g carb range. Which equates to 3,200 - 4,000 calories worth of pure carbohydrates.

The other thing is when you eat a ton of carbs, like for carb-loading before an endurance event, your body will go into hyper-carb burning mode where it will burn through carbs at a significantly higher rate than usual. The idea of carbs turning into fat and subsequently stored as body fat is a very, very rare process outside of people who are obese and eat at drastically chronic caloric surpluses with lots of carbs. For most people reading this message, their bodies will rarely undergo de novo lipogenesis (DNL): the pathway that converts carbs to fat. It's a very inactive pathway in humans.

I would be happy to find studies on this, but this topic is more difficult to find reliable research on. I dug some up for a thread a week or two ago on this forum, maybe I can find that thread and just get the links from there.

I may have not remembered correctly but I thought I heard it was 1200 calories. Either way what you are saying about carbs rarely getting stored as fat seems crazy to me I must admit. I was under the impression that all carbs which exceed your glycogen storage level are stored as fat.

SmashleeWpg

Or what about 400 for breakie, lunch, and dinner, with 2 x 100 calorie snacks in between those meals? That allows you to have a more filling breakfast.... as far as breakfast and no time to cook goes, as everyone else has mentioned there is always the option of making things up the day before/ahead of time. I spend a Sunday every couple of weeks making up these great breakfast quiches, and then freezing them. I only have to grab them out of the freezer and heat them up at work, and they are very low carb! All you do is mix frozen drained spinach, a bit of cheese, egg whites, and whatever other veggies you want, line a muffin pan with a slice of low-fat, low-sodium deli meat (think turkey or ham), fill each cup with some of your mixture, and bake. So tasty!

I also am a big fan of protein shakes for breakfast in the morning... I can put together a great green monster (google, them, they're awesome!) with flax seed, 2 cups baby spinach, 1 cup almond milk, scoop of protein powder, and frozen strawberries, for about 350 calories. Keeps me full for a LONG time and takes 2 minutes to whip up!

mynameisuntz

I may have not remembered correctly but I thought I heard it was 1200 calories. Either way what you are saying about carbs rarely getting stored as fat seems crazy to me I must admit. I was under the impression that all carbs which exceed your glycogen storage level are stored as fat.

Only under extreme circumstances, but let me re-word it this way:

What's the difference between carbs being converted to fat vs. carbs being stored as glycogen and restricting fat loss? The end result is the same: lack of fat loss, but the process is simply different. If you eat 4,000 calories of dietary fat, it will be stored as fat and subsequently you will have to burn 4,000 calories of that fat before you return to "baseline." If you eat 4,000 calories of carbs and max out glycogen, it will not be stored as fat but eventually that will all have to be burned off before you return to "baseline."

Too many carbs at a caloric surplus does not inherently mean FAT gain, but rather WEIGHT gain and subsequently restricted fat loss upon returning to a caloric deficit. It inhibits fat loss rather than contributing to fat gain. Either way, again, the fat won't be coming off.

That's a simplistic version of a very complex process.

Chuckw40

I may have not remembered correctly but I thought I heard it was 1200 calories. Either way what you are saying about carbs rarely getting stored as fat seems crazy to me I must admit. I was under the impression that all carbs which exceed your glycogen storage level are stored as fat.

Only under extreme circumstances, but let me re-word it this way:

What's the difference between carbs being converted to fat vs. carbs being stored as glycogen and restricting fat loss? The end result is the same: lack of fat loss, but the process is simply different. If you eat 4,000 calories of dietary fat, it will be stored as fat and subsequently you will have to burn 4,000 calories of that fat before you return to "baseline." If you eat 4,000 calories of carbs and max out glycogen, it will not be stored as fat but eventually that will all have to be burned off before you return to "baseline."

Too many carbs at a caloric surplus does not inherently mean FAT gain, but rather WEIGHT gain and subsequently restricted fat loss upon returning to a caloric deficit. It inhibits fat loss rather than contributing to fat gain. Either way, again, the fat won't be coming off.

That's a simplistic version of a very complex process.

Ok, let's see. Here is an example, simplified of course. Tell me if this is wrong.

I have slept all night after loading up with a ton of carbs the night before so my glyogen should be pretty full.
I decide to eat all my calories for breakfast and eat 1600 calories of pure table sugar.
The sugar is quickly enters my bloodstream and my blood sugar level goes sky high.
Insulin is released into my bloodstream and some of the glucose is burned as fuel.
A small amount is converted to glycogen and stored in my liver and muscles.
The rest just kinda floats around in my body until it's needed for fuel???

And eating like this will not lead to metabolic syndrome or eventually diabetes?

mynameisuntz

Ok, let's see. Here is an example, simplified of course. Tell me if this is wrong.

I have slept all night after loading up with a ton of carbs the night before so my glyogen should be pretty full.
I decide to eat all my calories for breakfast and eat 1600 calories of pure table sugar.
The sugar is quickly enters my bloodstream and my blood sugar level goes sky high.
Insulin is released into my bloodstream and some of the glucose is burned as fuel.
A small amount is converted to glycogen and stored in my liver and muscles.
The rest just kinda floats around in my body until it's needed for fuel???

And eating like this will not lead to metabolic syndrome or eventually diabetes?

1) Your glycogen will not be filled as sleeping for 8 hours will burn a good amount of calories. BMR for a male with an average LBM works at ~1.5 calories per minute. Meaning 8 hours of sleep = 720 calories burned from sleep alone. We'll call it 650 - 800 calories burned through sleep. Your glycogen, upon waking, will not be filled.

2) If you eat 1,600 calories of pure table sugar, then:
a) Some will be burned off immediately. Your body will recognize the high levels of carbs in your system and will compensate by burning them at an unusually high rate. This is a fat AND muscle-sparing process.
b) Some will be stored to fill the remaining glycogen.
c) Anything left over will undergo de novo lipogenesis and be converted to fat.

-Processes A and B are not linear; they will happen simultaneously-

3) However, let's say you ate that at 6 am. What happens the rest of the day? All the carbs that were stored as fat will be burned off, along with all of it that was stored as glycogen. And considering you're at a caloric deficit - MORE fat and glycogen will be burned off on top of it.

4) Remember that weight loss increases insulin sensitivity. Don't miss the forest for the trees here. While I'm not condoning eating 1,600 calories of pure sugar for breakfast as it will result in a spike in blood sugar and subsequent insulin spike, over the long-term as you lose weight your insulin sensitivity will go up, not down. Assuming you don't have a clinical condition, of course.

Chuckw40

Ok, let's see. Here is an example, simplified of course. Tell me if this is wrong.

I have slept all night after loading up with a ton of carbs the night before so my glyogen should be pretty full.
I decide to eat all my calories for breakfast and eat 1600 calories of pure table sugar.
The sugar is quickly enters my bloodstream and my blood sugar level goes sky high.
Insulin is released into my bloodstream and some of the glucose is burned as fuel.
A small amount is converted to glycogen and stored in my liver and muscles.
The rest just kinda floats around in my body until it's needed for fuel???

And eating like this will not lead to metabolic syndrome or eventually diabetes?

1) Your glycogen will not be filled as sleeping for 8 hours will burn a good amount of calories. BMR for a male with an average LBM works at ~1.5 calories per minute. Meaning 8 hours of sleep = 720 calories burned from sleep alone. We'll call it 650 - 800 calories burned through sleep. Your glycogen, upon waking, will not be filled.

2) If you eat 1,600 calories of pure table sugar, then:
a) Some will be burned off immediately. Your body will recognize the high levels of carbs in your system and will compensate by burning them at an unusually high rate. This is a fat AND muscle-sparing process.
b) Some will be stored to fill the remaining glycogen.
c) Anything left over will undergo de novo lipogenesis and be converted to fat.

-Processes A and B are not linear; they will happen simultaneously-

3) However, let's say you ate that at 6 am. What happens the rest of the day? All the carbs that were stored as fat will be burned off, along with all of it that was stored as glycogen. And considering you're at a caloric deficit - MORE fat and glycogen will be burned off on top of it.

4) Remember that weight loss increases insulin sensitivity. Don't miss the forest for the trees here. While I'm not condoning eating 1,600 calories of pure sugar for breakfast as it will result in a spike in blood sugar and subsequent insulin spike, over the long-term as you lose weight your insulin sensitivity will go up, not down. Assuming you don't have a clinical condition, of course.

It sounds like you are saying that 100% of the calories I burn while sleeping will be from Glycogen and 0% is ever taken from your lean muscle tissue. Is that right?

mynameisuntz

It sounds like you are saying that 100% of the calories I burn while sleeping will be from Glycogen and 0% is ever taken from your lean muscle tissue. Is that right?

If you're in a caloric surplus and maxing out glycogen stores before sleep, then it'll be incredibly close to 0%. Your body will see the influx of carbs and make that its almost-sole source of fuel. If you're in a caloric deficit, then that number will still be very close to 0% DURING SLEEP, but all long term caloric deficits imply SOME muscle loss.

Like I said: carbs have anti-catabolic properties. They are anti-catabolism for fat AND muscle alike under certain contexts. It's not that carbs make you fat, it's that they can stop you from losing fat. Maxing out glycogen stores, which almost always implies a caloric surplus according to research, is one of those contexts.