Problem with carbs

TK421NotAtPost

I found this quote also very interesting...

"There is often also an impact of weight loss or weight gain in terms of how saturated fats affect blood lipid levels; in general when weight is lost, blood cholesterol levels improve almost irrespective of the type of fat consumed. But when weight is being gained or even maintained, often blood cholesterol levels worsen with a high saturated 'fat intake."

Once a person reaches his/her ideal body-weight, this quote above would indicate that unless further weight loss is achieved, it would probably be best not to adopt a free-for-all type of attitude when it comes to sat fats, unless you're a fit athlete living a very active life-style.

But I think the main point Lyle was trying to make (and has already been mentioned in this thread) is that the effects of Sat Fats on your body are highly context dependent.

girlinahat

As adults, we don't need fat (not as much as the American culture is consuming) and I did say our body uses 10% of fat, we need little protein unless you are the exception (like body building). And I did say to go to a nutritionist/doctor to determine YOUR protein needs. I think however, I can generalize and say that fat is bad. I'll make another generalization and say that refined sugar is bad as well.

But you're WRONG. If fat is bad then we must postulate that no fat is good. So if I eat no fat I will live a happy and healthy life. Epic Fail. We do most certainly need fat.

I can agree with you on the refined sugar. But it tastes SO GOOOOD

I am replying, giving you folks urls to look up. Please back up your claims as well. Dr. Atkins is the meat only doctor so I suggest you listen to the interview and we can talk afterwards about fat and sugar. Dr. Atkins does say that fat and sugar is bad.

I am not disagreeing that an excess of fat is not a good thing, but with your statement that fat is bad.

The American Heart Association does not appear to state that fat is bad - http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/TheDishwithDrEckel/The-Dish-Personal-Daily-Calorie-and-Fat-Limits_UCM_304896_Article.jsp#mainContent and recommends that we consume some fat. Hence my comment that no fat is no good either.

I'm afraid I haven't listened to the interviews, I am interested in more controlled scientific studies and I am not swayed by either Dr. McDougall or Dr. Atkins - who is not actually a 'meat only' doctor. My beef is with some of the blanket statements you make which are just plain wrong

The American Heart Association says not to eat more than 7% saturated fat, 1% trans fat. Those are low numbers.

If you don't want to add to the solution and just nit pick my argument, go right ahead.

the AHA says -' What about fats? Many people think that it’s best to eat as little fat as possible, but the American Heart Association recommends that about 25–35 percent of your daily calories come from fats.'

which directly contradicts your statement that alll fats are bad. It's not about nitpicking, but there are people who will read information given by members here and it is important that we get things right to keep everyone healthy. Lets be clear on one thing though - fat people do not get fat from eating too much fat. fat people get fat from eating too much. period.


and in terms of the OP, mine are set at 40/40/20 (carb/protein/fat) reading that from the AHA suggests I might want to up that last one.

TK421NotAtPost

The following link is from Stanford Medical School. It is a study comparing low fat to high fat diets. Guess which one wins in the category of health benefits?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo&feature=player_embedded#at=1466

That study did not control for total calories consumed by participants. You're following the same faulty line of reasoning as Gary Taubes did in his book. When total calories are not controlled, low carb diets almost always perform better, because it is more difficult to consume as many calories as when eating a low fat diet.

There have been numerous studies (WHEN calories are CONTROLLED) which show that given sufficient protein, low carb doesn't provide any metabolic advantage over low fat diets.

songbyrdsweet

My brain exploded and my eyeballs melted after scanning through these posts.

SO MUCH MISINFORMATION.

I'm not even an expert yet, and I'm getting a PhD in muscle metabolism! If you garner all your information from -.coms on the internet, muscle & fitness, or fad diet books, you aren't basing ANYTHING in 'scientific literature'.

Go to Pubmed or something!

/rant.

Rae9911

After it seems that my question was hijacked by childish bickering between certain people, I would like to say thank you to Andersonkar & Stanvoodoo for their suggestions

I will look to changed to 40 40 20 and keep to the calories suggest by Dr, the water was a bit high that day but was busy decorating the hallway and in the heat needed a bit extra water. Usually I drink between 8 & 10 glasses depending on exercise.

myofibril

But I think the main point Lyle was trying to make (and has already been mentioned in this thread) is that the effects of Sat Fats on your body are highly context dependent.

Exactly....

girlinahat

After it seems that my question was hijacked by childish bickering between certain people, I would like to say thank you to Andersonkar & Stanvoodoo for their suggestions

I will look to changed to 40 40 20 and keep to the calories suggest by Dr, the water was a bit high that day but was busy decorating the hallway and in the heat needed a bit extra water. Usually I drink between 8 & 10 glasses depending on exercise.

I'm sorry you think of it as childish bickering. I choose not to post nutritional information or links because I don't have the expertise to do so, however I do think I should pull people up if they post things that are blatantly wrong or likely to lead someone into an unhealthy diet. Whilst the blanket statement 'all fats are bad' may have been intended to guide a person towards eating a healthy diet choosing healthy fats, the statement on its own could be misread and is not backed up by proper scientific evidence.

Equally I think that the implied 'eating fat makes you put on fat' is wrong, and I do not need to have a degree in nutrition to know that the reasons for putting on weight are far more complicated than just having some fat (specifially saturated fat) in your diet. You may think of the thread as being hijacked, but if we all stood back and let blanket statements like this pepper the board then I am afraid some people will take what is said too literally. Having said that, Taems comment 'do your own research into nutrition' is absolutely the best tip.

ps. the 8 glasses of water thing is a fallacy too......

Rae9911

Girlinahat thanks for your input I agree with the not posting nutritional info and I was not indicating you were being the childish one but it seemed to me that Taems was trying to force his opinion onto others and was like a dog with a bone. Instead of letting everyone have their own opinion he kept putting more of his own. I have researched the info on the web which had got me confused about it as there are so many conflicting opinions. I was only after a general opinion of what others were doing so I could gage for myself what I may set my limits to.

LaJauna

The following link is from Stanford Medical School. It is a study comparing low fat to high fat diets. Guess which one wins in the category of health benefits?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo&feature=player_embedded#at=1466

That study did not control for total calories consumed by participants. You're following the same faulty line of reasoning as Gary Taubes did in his book. When total calories are not controlled, low carb diets almost always perform better, because it is more difficult to consume as many calories as when eating a low fat diet.

There have been numerous studies (WHEN calories are CONTROLLED) which show that given sufficient protein, low carb doesn't provide any metabolic advantage over low fat diets.

I agree with most of what you said. The part that stuck out to me is the study did not control total calories. The reason low carb wins at that point is that high fat diets (eating unsaturated fats!) is that they keep you fuller, longer! You don't need the higher calories to be satisfied. Isn't that the aim of dieting to finally get to the point where you don't need to eat as much as you did when you were "starving" as a fat person? I love that I can now "forget" to eat a meal without hunger dogging me. I am satisfied with what I am consuming. I have amble energy. I am healthier according to all my blood work-ups. Why would I want to go back to eating "carbage"?

BetterWithAge

Oh my head hurts :noway:

TK421NotAtPost

The following link is from Stanford Medical School. It is a study comparing low fat to high fat diets. Guess which one wins in the category of health benefits?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo&feature=player_embedded#at=1466

That study did not control for total calories consumed by participants. You're following the same faulty line of reasoning as Gary Taubes did in his book. When total calories are not controlled, low carb diets almost always perform better, because it is more difficult to consume as many calories as when eating a low fat diet.

There have been numerous studies (WHEN calories are CONTROLLED) which show that given sufficient protein, low carb doesn't provide any metabolic advantage over low fat diets.

I agree with most of what you said. The part that stuck out to me is the study did not control total calories. The reason low carb wins at that point is that high fat diets (eating unsaturated fats!) is that they keep you fuller, longer! You don't need the higher calories to be satisfied. Isn't that the aim of dieting to finally get to the point where you don't need to eat as much as you did when you were "starving" as a fat person? I love that I can now "forget" to eat a meal without hunger dogging me. I am satisfied with what I am consuming. I have amble energy. I am healthier according to all my blood work-ups. Why would I want to go back to eating "carbage"?

Is it the low carb or is it the high protein that keeps you satiated? I increased my protein to 35% and it takes a concerted effort for me to eat all my calories. I agree that fat also has a satiating effect, but not as much as protein.

Since you seem to fall under the group of folks who do better when controlling your carbs, you will do better when keeping carbs low (BTW, kudos on your weight loss!). However, I personally do not believe in villifying an entire food group and calling all starchy carbs as bad. Believe it or not, but some people actually do better when including a moderate amount of starchy carbs in their diet.

But I am glad that you acknowledge that it's the calorie deficit and not some mystical idea that carb control trumps total calories when it comes to weight loss.

HeyLisa

Totally separate opinion here and not negating the documentation provided by people that work very hard for to achieve their fitness goals..

Eat your net calories daily. Try to eat balanced meals to enjoy and feel full. Try to eat natural and lean because it just feels better and it does fill you up more then crap. Try to add more healthy activity and exercise daily.

I believe, depending on how regulated you want your life and intake to be, that this is a way of living not a diet. This is not something to jump on and off. I did that with Atkins for years and though I did very well on the net 25-30 net carbs a day with tons of exercise and lowering my BP and CHOL.. it just wasn't a LIFESTYLE I chose to keep in my life.

That is why I am so pushy with the lifestyle way of thinking. Life is enjoyable even counting calories if you just enjoy your food and make the best choices that work for you and your likes/dislikes. Consistancy rocks!

girlinahat

Since you seem to fall under the group of folks who do better when controlling your carbs, you will do better when keeping carbs low. However, I personally do not believe in villifying an entire food group and calling all starchy carbs as bad. Believe it or not, but some people actually do better when including a moderate amount of starchy carbs in their diet.

I have to agree with this. Having delved into chinese medicine and nutrition and the long-standing practice of trophology I know that I fare much better on a more protein-based diet (protein plus vegetables) than a more carb-based diet (grains plus vegetables). It makes me feel fresher and gives me more energy, whereas a carb-heavy meal leaves me bloated and falling asleep soon after.

But that's just me. I certainly wouldn't call starchy carbs bad, after all, whole cultures survive on them.

But I do think it is the WAY we eat that is more to blame than WHAT we eat. So for example the SAD (I'm British but I'll use that to describe the typical Western diet) is excessive in carbs and woefully lacking in fresh vegetables. Something in Michael Pollan's book Food Rules struck me as a good rule to live by - the quicker a food will begin to rot the more nutrients it will have in it. So a salad leaf will be better for you than a chemically preserved wheat product that has sat on the shelf in your cupboard (and been sat in a granary for far longer than that). Fresh food in season is a better way to go, we will gain more from the food - whatever it is if it is fresh.

LaJauna

The following link is from Stanford Medical School. It is a study comparing low fat to high fat diets. Guess which one wins in the category of health benefits?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo&feature=player_embedded#at=1466

That study did not control for total calories consumed by participants. You're following the same faulty line of reasoning as Gary Taubes did in his book. When total calories are not controlled, low carb diets almost always perform better, because it is more difficult to consume as many calories as when eating a low fat diet.

There have been numerous studies (WHEN calories are CONTROLLED) which show that given sufficient protein, low carb doesn't provide any metabolic advantage over low fat diets.

I agree with most of what you said. The part that stuck out to me is the study did not control total calories. The reason low carb wins at that point is that high fat diets (eating unsaturated fats!) is that they keep you fuller, longer! You don't need the higher calories to be satisfied. Isn't that the aim of dieting to finally get to the point where you don't need to eat as much as you did when you were "starving" as a fat person? I love that I can now "forget" to eat a meal without hunger dogging me. I am satisfied with what I am consuming. I have amble energy. I am healthier according to all my blood work-ups. Why would I want to go back to eating "carbage"?

Is it the low carb or is it the high protein that keeps you satiated? I increased my protein to 35% and it takes a concerted effort for me to eat all my calories. I agree that fat also has a satiating effect, but not as much as protein.

Since you seem to fall under the group of folks who do better when controlling your carbs, you will do better when keeping carbs low (BTW, kudos on your weight loss!). However, I personally do not believe in villifying an entire food group and calling all starchy carbs as bad. Believe it or not, but some people actually do better when including a moderate amount of starchy carbs in their diet.

But I am glad that you acknowledge that it's the calorie deficit and not some mystical idea that carb control trumps total calories when it comes to weight loss.

It isn't the carbs that are nasty per se. It is the standard american diet that sucks. Cultures that are based on high density carbs and veggies are healthy. Cultures that eat high protein and low carbs are healthy. It is the horrible combination of sugars and starches that is killing us. Our poor pancreas can't process it all and we are getting sicker and sicker.

LaJauna

"Is it the low carb or is it the high protein that keeps you satiated? I increased my protein to 35% and it takes a concerted effort for me to eat all my calories. I agree that fat also has a satiating effect, but not as much as protein. "

Sorry I forgot to answer the question. I am leaning toward the fat. my ratios are 70% fat-25% protein- 5% carbs. When my fat drops I stop losing and I am hungry. When my carbs raise, I stop losing and I am starving. Keeping my protein at the 25-30% level seems to work for me. I was open to all the options. I can't to the 40-30-30 ratio. I have too many cravings. I want to eat all day long. So I have found what works for me. Atkins WOE/L.

andyxbear

To the OP:

I've been going over on carbs pretty much every day, BUT I've been eating whole grain/wheat in place of regular white pasta. I usually make my own frozen entree`s & use whole wheat pasta with some type of pasta sauce instead of buying the pre-made frozen entree`s. It's cheaper & has less sodium!

I've also been pretty active for at least 30 mins every day which is mainly walking and I've been steadily losing weight.

Carbs seem to make me feel full quicker & longer than protein/meat. I do eat at least one serving of lean meat almost every day though.

freerange

Anyone that thinks that eating fat will make you fat, because it's fat, is a fool.

TK421NotAtPost

Anyone that thinks that eating fat will make you fat, because it's fat, is a fool.

freerange

Anyone that thinks that eating fat will make you fat, because it's fat, is a fool.

I pitty the fool

girlinahat

I ain't getting on no PLANE!!!!!