Why we need carbs.

hpsnickers1

No room to call Taubes anything until you have read his research. He is a science journalist. You don't have to be a scientist to understand science.

I've read his research. I've also seen the way that he ignores the overwhelming amount of research that disputes the entire premise of his argument.

The premise of Taube's argument (calories don't matter, insulin response does) is based on his assumption that obese people consume a similar amount of calories as normal sized people....ergo, obesity was caused by something else. The source for this assumption? A 1980 report suggesting that the obese ate the same number of calories as the lean. Unfortunately, the data in this 1980 report was wrong. But that didn't matter to Taubes. He had his hypothesis and he was determined to cherry-pick his research to support this hypothesis. After all, without his hypothesis, he wouldn't have a book to write.

Never mind the fact that study after study over the past 30 years shows that the obese systematically under-report their food intake (by up to 30-50%) and over-report their activity (by about the same). So when they say they are only eating 1800 calories per day, they may be eating 2400-3600 calories per day. And their activity isn’t nearly what they think.

And when you put those same folks in controlled metabolic ward conditions and control their food intake and/or activity output…voila, the energy balance equation holds. It’s only when you believe the (incorrect) self-reported data that it doesn’t.

The obese aren't doing this on purpose. Most people simply suck at knowing how much they are actually eating. Leave them to self-report it and they almost always screw it up.

If that is the type of research that works for you, then more power to you. I would have trouble blindly accepting those types of false premises.

Heck, even the most hard-core low carbers, like Mark Sisson as well as the current Atkins followers preach that calories DO MATTER. There are good low-carbes, and there are the quacks. If you want to believe Taubes and his assertion that calories do not matter, go right ahead. :laugh:

So you finally read GCBC? Actually read the book from cover to cover? Because I remember you saying in a previous post that you didn't need to read the book.

And no he never says calories in/calories out doesn't matter. He says that overeating and being inactive is not a "behavioral problem". There is an underlying cause and that cause could be refined grains and sugars and the insulin issues that they cause - which worsens over decades and could be underlying cause of most - if not all - of the chronic illnesses we get as we age. He put forth his own hypothesis and said it needs to be tested. You don't have to be a scientist to understand science. Sure I can say he cherry picked his data. He showed how the evidence that didn't support what the "experts" were trying to prove got twisted, ignored and/or explained away as irrelevant when it shouldn't have been.

And I was gaining weight yet I wasn't overeating. I gained 20lbs in less than a year and I wasn't overeating. It was what I was eating - not how much.

hpsnickers1

I have been eating low carb for a while now. There is NO way I can be totally carb free. FIrst of all I'm not creative enough to find enough food to satisfy me. Secondly, if I don't have some carbs to balance out all my protein I tend to have my blood sugar drop too low and I feel a bit crappy. Carbs are not bad. You just need to know what kinds to eat and how to incorporate them into your diet in a way that works for you. I'm 20 pounds down so I think I'm doing ok.

The Problem: The Basic Assumption of the Carb Paradigm is Wrong

Glucose is not the preferred fuel of muscle cells under normal human resting metabolic conditions or even under most normal human movement patterns (exercise). Fat is. Sure, given an unlimited supply of glucose and regular refilling of glycogen stores, skeletal muscle will burn through it during exercise the same way a fire burns through kindling when that’s all you have to offer. The body can shift carbohydrate oxidation to keep up with intake. But skeletal muscle can burn fat with great efficiency (and far less oxidative fallout) at relatively high outputs for very long bouts. Cardiac muscle actually prefers ketones, and the brain can run just fine (maybe even optimally) on a blend of ketones and minimal glucose. Our survival as a species has depended on these evolutionary adaptations away from glucose dependency. Entire civilizations have existed for ages on what is practically a zero-carb diet. Think about this: there is actually no requirement for any “essential dietary carbohydrates” in human nutrition. It’s possible to live a very long and healthy life never consuming much – if any – in the way of carbs, provided you get adequate dietary protein and fat. The same can’t be said for going too long without protein or fat. Cut too far back on either of those macronutrients and you will eventually get sick and die.

The Evolutionary Model
Fat and protein were the dominant macronutrients (when food was even available) over the majority of our two-and-a-half million years as evolving humans. The lack of regular access to food and a scarcity of carbohydrates for much of this time necessitated that we adapt efficient pathways to readily store and access body fat for energy if we were to survive day-to-day and generation-to-generation. Our movement patterns were such that we never required large amounts of glucose or that we needed to store very much glycogen. It was predominantly fats, ketones and the minimal infusion of glucose via gluconeogenesis that got us here. Dietary carbs were insignificant. In fact, when you consider how ridiculously small the body’s glycogen reservoirs are, you understand that it would have been impossible for us to survive as a species if glucose were truly the “preferred” fuel. The liver, the main back-up glycogen/glucose storage facility for the brain and other glucose-burning organs, can only store about 100 grams of glycogen. Less than a day’s worth. Your muscles can only hold another 350-500 grams, barely enough to run for 90 minutes at a reasonable clip, and that glycogen isn’t even available to provide fuel for the brain. Meanwhile, we have a virtually unlimited storage capacity for fat (like 100,000 grams or close to a million calories on some people). The reason glycogen storage wasn’t necessary is because, between our copious fat storage capability, easy access to fats as fuel, gluconeogenesis and ketones, we just didn’t need much. Evolution tends not to reward structures or functions that take up unnecessary space or waste energy.

So How Much Glucose Do You Really Need?
Much less than most people assume. At any one time, the total amount of glucose dissolved in the bloodstream of a healthy non-diabetic is equivalent to only a teaspoon (maybe 5 grams). Much more than that is toxic; much less than that and you pass out. That’s not much range for a so-called “preferred” fuel, is it? Several studies have shown that under normal low MET conditions (at rest or low-to mid- levels of activity such as walking and easy work) the body only needs about 5 grams of glucose an hour. And that’s for people who aren’t yet fat-adapted or keto-adapted. The brain is the major consumer of glucose, needing maybe 120 grams a day in people who aren’t yet on a low carb eating program. Low carb eating reduces the brain’s glucose requirements considerably, and those who are very low carb (VLC) and keto-adapted may only require about 30 grams of glucose per day to fuel the brain (and little-to-none to fuel the muscles at <75% max efforts). Twenty of those grams can come from glycerol (a byproduct of fat metabolism) and the balance from gluconeogenesis in the liver (which can actually make up to a whopping 150 grams a day if you haven’t metabolically damaged it with NAFLD through fructose overdosing). Bottom line, unless you are a physical laborer or are training (exercising) hard on a daily basis, once you become fat-adapted, you probably don’t ever need to consume more than 150 grams of dietary carbs – and you can probably thrive on far less. Many PBers do very well (including working out) on 30-70 grams a day.

The Fat Paradigm
The Fat Paradigm, under which the human species has thrived quite effectively for two and a half million years, recognizes that human metabolism is pre-programmed by evolution to be primarily fat-based (the real preferred fuel). In other words, our genes expect us to function optimally when we consume fats and can easily access our stored fat. The Fat Paradigm acknowledges that the body is able to manufacture adequate glucose as needed. It acknowledges that most typical human movement patterns can be fueled almost entirely by fats and/or ketones (PDF) if need be, but can draw on glycogen when energy bursts are required (and which can then be replaced over time). It acknowledges that fat (and cholesterol) are not the proximate cause of heart disease. It acknowledges that fat cells are designed to release stored fatty acids as required, especially during times of scarcity or fasting. It allows for intermittent fasting as a means of accelerating fat loss without sacrificing muscle tissue. It increases insulin sensitivity, modulates energy and mood swings, and allows for a normal and healthy drop in hunger and cravings. There is a downside, however: you can’t train long and hard day-in and day-out in the fat paradigm.

(Mark's Daily Apple)

bcattoes

Exactly. This nation is being told that grains are more important than fruits and veggies. We are being told that fat causes heart disease, high cholesterol, diabetes and this is all a load of crap. When you drop the carbs (grain carbs and sugars) from the diet and increase the fat and protein it is impossible to overeat. Those refined grains and sugars keep you hungry (I used to think it was hunger but turned out to be the blood sugar crash).
Yet 366 million of us are diabetic and it's costing the health care system $4.6billion per year to fight it. Obviously the dietary guidelines is not working. When our diet became about money and politics our health ceased to matter.

Who is telling us that grains are more important than fruits and veggies? I've worked in health care for almost 30 years and subscribe to about 12 different health and nutrition newsletters, not to mention the numerous journals and manuals I have to read for work and the conferences/meetings, etc I attend regularly. I've never heard that.

hpsnickers1

I cannot say the study I am about to present is the actual study. However, there is a study that I have come across that sounds similar to what I have been reading here as to why Taubes is correctly/incorrectly referring to (so take it with a grain of carbs).

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/4/905.full.pdf+html

As people (doctors, diet gurus, etc) interpret studies differently, here is what I learned from the study, as per Jeff Novick--and that is calorie density vs calorie dilute and the probability to overeat calorie dense foods. As foods per pound (as we can have a constant factor in calories) can help us determine whether or not we are likely to consume in abundance. He gives the example of broccoli being 120 calories per pound and olive oil being 4000 calories per pound. He says that even a table spoon of olive oil has more calories than a pound of broccoli. So is there such a thing as good calories and bad calories? I would rather frame the question as there is such a thing as bad carbs and good carbs and what we should be focusing on is choosing unrefined carbs (less processed) and calorie dilute carbs.

As Novick points out, healthy carbs gives us, not only energy but vitamins C & E, carotenoids, phytochemicals, magnesium, potassium, B-vitamins, and trace minerals.

I think we need carbs!

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-grains/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/

We don't NEED carbs. There is no such thing as an essential dietary carbohydrate. They only thing they are to the body is immediate fuel and what doesn't get used immediately gets converted to fat and sent to storage. Protein and fat are needed by the body for repair and maintenance. They are essential. Carbs aren't.

bcattoes

I cannot say the study I am about to present is the actual study. However, there is a study that I have come across that sounds similar to what I have been reading here as to why Taubes is correctly/incorrectly referring to (so take it with a grain of carbs).

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/4/905.full.pdf+html

As people (doctors, diet gurus, etc) interpret studies differently, here is what I learned from the study, as per Jeff Novick--and that is calorie density vs calorie dilute and the probability to overeat calorie dense foods. As foods per pound (as we can have a constant factor in calories) can help us determine whether or not we are likely to consume in abundance. He gives the example of broccoli being 120 calories per pound and olive oil being 4000 calories per pound. He says that even a table spoon of olive oil has more calories than a pound of broccoli. So is there such a thing as good calories and bad calories? I would rather frame the question as there is such a thing as bad carbs and good carbs and what we should be focusing on is choosing unrefined carbs (less processed) and calorie dilute carbs.

As Novick points out, healthy carbs gives us, not only energy but vitamins C & E, carotenoids, phytochemicals, magnesium, potassium, B-vitamins, and trace minerals.

I think we need carbs!

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-grains/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/

We don't NEED carbs. There is no such thing as an essential dietary carbohydrate. They only thing they are to the body is immediate fuel and what doesn't get used immediately gets converted to fat and sent to storage. Protein and fat are needed by the body for repair and maintenance. They are essential. Carbs aren't.

There are people with severe protein allergies who live on a diet completely devoid of protein.

Acg67

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-grains/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-grains-are-unhealthy/

We don't NEED carbs. There is no such thing as an essential dietary carbohydrate. They only thing they are to the body is immediate fuel and what doesn't get used immediately gets converted to fat and sent to storage. Protein and fat are needed by the body for repair and maintenance. They are essential. Carbs aren't.

the process of de novo lipogenesis in humans only happens in rare circumstances; low fat diets and massive chronic overfeeding of CHO

FairyMiss

okay once and for all, we do not NEED carbs, Though they are not harmful to the greater majority of the population, great woo hoo.

bcattoes

okay once and for all, we do not NEED carbs, Though they are not harmful to the greater majority of the population, great woo hoo.

You know, I see people post that all the time, but it's just so misleading. How do you get enough vitamins and minerals without eating carbs, which are present in vegetables and fruit? Even meat has some carbs. I know it's technically possible to live without eating vegetables, fruit, meat and grains, but posting something like "we don't need carbs" is stretching the meaning of the word "need" pretty far.

FairyMiss

okay once and for all, we do not NEED carbs, Though they are not harmful to the greater majority of the population, great woo hoo.

You know, I see people post that all the time, but it's just so misleading. How do you get enough vitamins and minerals without eating carbs, which are present in vegetables and fruit? Even meat has some carbs. I know it's technically possible to live without eating vegetables, fruit, meat and grains, but posting something like "we don't need carbs" is stretching the meaning of the word "need" pretty far.

So is to say we do technically , I eat minamal carbs and do just fine, eating just protien and veggies. i do not eat veggies for the carbs i do eat them despite the carbs, as it is totaly impossible to avoid any carbs.

I feel my best when i eat minamal carbs. So i have to tolerate some to enjoy my veggies. oh well. do i need them no


oh and are you by chance a lawyer or in politcs , cause you sure to like to argue

bcattoes

okay once and for all, we do not NEED carbs, Though they are not harmful to the greater majority of the population, great woo hoo.

You know, I see people post that all the time, but it's just so misleading. How do you get enough vitamins and minerals without eating carbs, which are present in vegetables and fruit? Even meat has some carbs. I know it's technically possible to live without eating vegetables, fruit, meat and grains, but posting something like "we don't need carbs" is stretching the meaning of the word "need" pretty far.

So is to say we do technically , I eat minamal carbs and do just fine, eating just protien and veggies. i do not eat veggies for the carbs i do eat them despite the carbs, as it is totaly impossible to avoid any carbs.

I feel my best when i eat minamal carbs. So i have to tolerate some to enjoy my veggies. oh well. do i need them no

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me (you eat carbs because they are in food that your need) or disagreeing. How many is not the issue in a blanket statement such as "we don't need carbs".

The human body can function without eating carbs, but you'd likely have to supplement with manufactured "foods". IMO that is not the same as not "need"ing carbs.

Maybe this is why God put carbs and nutrients in the same foods. Because we were meant to eat them.

FairyMiss

".

The human body can function without eating carbs, but you'd likely have to supplement with manufactured "foods". IMO that is not the same as not "need"ing carbs.

.

yes it would be the same thing as not needing carbs. Though the small amount found in veggies is acceptable to enjoy things. makes life a little greener.
but the statem The human body can function without eating crabs. does excatly mean not needing and the statement was your words

bcattoes

".

The human body can function without eating carbs, but you'd likely have to supplement with manufactured "foods". IMO that is not the same as not "need"ing carbs.

.

yes it would be the same thing as not needing carbs. Though the small amount found in veggies is acceptable to enjoy things. makes life a little greener.
but the statem The human body can function without eating crabs. does excatly mean not needing and the statement was your words

I will respectfully have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "need". But using your definition, the human body doesn't need protein either.

aj_rock

Guys, this thread is completely ridiculous.

Everything has its place. Putting all notions of 'required' nutrients aside, there is a how and why to eat something and not another, and guess what? There's no catch-all answer!

Just learn what you can, and make an educated guess for yourselves!

Grokette

okay once and for all, we do not NEED carbs, Though they are not harmful to the greater majority of the population, great woo hoo.

You know, I see people post that all the time, but it's just so misleading. How do you get enough vitamins and minerals without eating carbs, which are present in vegetables and fruit? Even meat has some carbs. I know it's technically possible to live without eating vegetables, fruit, meat and grains, but posting something like "we don't need carbs" is stretching the meaning of the word "need" pretty far.

So is to say we do technically , I eat minamal carbs and do just fine, eating just protien and veggies. i do not eat veggies for the carbs i do eat them despite the carbs, as it is totaly impossible to avoid any carbs.

I feel my best when i eat minamal carbs. So i have to tolerate some to enjoy my veggies. oh well. do i need them no

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me (you eat carbs because they are in food that your need) or disagreeing. How many is not the issue in a blanket statement such as "we don't need carbs".

The human body can function without eating carbs, but you'd likely have to supplement with manufactured "foods". IMO that is not the same as not "need"ing carbs.

Maybe this is why God put carbs and nutrients in the same foods. Because we were meant to eat them.

People that live their lives on Protein and Fats don't supplement anything with manufactured foods. They live on Fat and Protein and they thrive and live healthy very easily...............

The amount of vitamins, minerals and such they they "recommend" is not needed. That is where they get you to *think* you need to be eating a certain way so they can make money off you...............

The USDA and FDA are the greatest marketing geniuses of all time.....................Most people buy what they are selling hook, line and sinker.

FairyMiss

".

The human body can function without eating carbs, but you'd likely have to supplement with manufactured "foods". IMO that is not the same as not "need"ing carbs.

.

yes it would be the same thing as not needing carbs. Though the small amount found in veggies is acceptable to enjoy things. makes life a little greener.
but the statem The human body can function without eating crabs. does excatly mean not needing and the statement was your words

I will respectfully have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "need". But using your definition, the human body doesn't need protein either.

no that is not true at all. your body is made of protien, there for needs it, it does NOT however need animal protein, and could probably survive on labratory derived protien source but then isnt much more pleasing to tear in to a nice juicy rare steak???

FairyMiss

Guys, this thread is completely ridiculous.

this is the truest statement in this thread.... but well kinda bored right now

bcattoes

I will respectfully have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "need". But using your definition, the human body doesn't need protein either.

no that is not true at all. your body is made of protien, there for needs it, it does NOT however need animal protein, and could probably survive on labratory derived protien source but then isnt much more pleasing to tear in to a nice juicy rare steak???

No, you need the amino acids from protein. There are people living without consuming protein, but honestly I've never heard of anyone living without carbohydrates. I'll have to look into that.

As to whether a steak is pleasing, well that is personal preference. I assume someone who would have an anaphylactic reaction from it t would not find it pleasing.

FairyMiss

I will respectfully have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "need". But using your definition, the human body doesn't need protein either.

no that is not true at all. your body is made of protien, there for needs it, it does NOT however need animal protein, and could probably survive on labratory derived protien source but then isnt much more pleasing to tear in to a nice juicy rare steak???

No, you need the amino acids from protein. There are people living without consuming protein, but honestly I've never heard of anyone living without carbohydrates. I'll have to look into that.

As to whether a steak is pleasing, well that is personal preference. I assume someone who would have an anaphylactic reaction from it t would not find it pleasing.

not necessarily true, you can find the flavor pleasing even i it is dangerous to eat. I am very allergic to strawberries , though I find the flavor very pleasing. but alas i dont like hospitals and epinephine so i am deprived of that pleasure

bcattoes

I will respectfully have to agree to disagree on the meaning of the word "need". But using your definition, the human body doesn't need protein either.

no that is not true at all. your body is made of protien, there for needs it, it does NOT however need animal protein, and could probably survive on labratory derived protien source but then isnt much more pleasing to tear in to a nice juicy rare steak???

No, you need the amino acids from protein. There are people living without consuming protein, but honestly I've never heard of anyone living without carbohydrates. I'll have to look into that.

As to whether a steak is pleasing, well that is personal preference. I assume someone who would have an anaphylactic reaction from it t would not find it pleasing.

not necessarily true, you can find the flavor pleasing even i it is dangerous to eat. I am very allergic to strawberries , though I find the flavor very pleasing. but alas i dont like hospitals and epinephine so i am deprived of that pleasure

:laugh: Now you're just being silly, right?

FairyMiss

scroll up to my reply to some dude, I m bored.

but not kidding about loving strawberries, even though i could wind up in the hospital... no i havent eaten them in eons (got real real sick last time, almost went to hospital, throat felt real thick, like it had hives down it. took mess of benadryl was fine) but will still stare longingly at them.

wont even eat strawberry flavored SUGAR FREE candy, even though there is no real strawberry in them, just makes it that much more painfull not to be able to eat the reall thing ( can't you just feel the melodrama?????)