Why we need carbs.

beckajw

carbs make you fat!

and give you diabetes! (if you eat too many and from the wrong sources)

Well they gave me diabetes anyway. I followed the low fat, whole grain, brown bread, brown rice diet for years and years, I continuously gained about 5-10 lbs per year, got diabetes, and high blood pressure.

I've been restricting my carbs to non-starchy veggies for one month now and my blood pressure is normal, and my blood glucose has been normal everytime I've tested this month.

So yeah do what you want, but if the low fat thing isn't working for you...you might want to look at where you get your carbs from.


Please pass the bacon!

Carbs do not give you diabetes.

taem

I would like you to quote the research where you found that carbs make people depressed please. I have sources that show otherwise but I am wait for you to show first.

Here's a study that shows higher fat diets are better for moods.

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN79_01/S0007114598000063a.pdf&code=dcabf272fda52039329e7a33e0a9df0e

File not available. [S0007114598000063a.pdf].

fteale

I would like you to quote the research where you found that carbs make people depressed please. I have sources that show otherwise but I am wait for you to show first.

Here's a study that shows higher fat diets are better for moods.

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN79_01/S0007114598000063a.pdf&code=dcabf272fda52039329e7a33e0a9df0e

High fat doesn't mean no grain/low complex carbs.

I don't know why I bother with these debates. I honestly couldn't give a **** one way or the other about carbs. I low carb because wheat makes me feel grotty and I don't like rice or potatoes, but it's accidental. I don't think anyone should be giving blanket statements one way or the other on this, as there are plenty of people who are healthier on higher carb, whole grain diets, and plenty who are healthier on high fat/protein ones. I think body type has a lot to do with it.

fteale

double post

taem

Here's another source that states that low fat makes you feel better than low carb.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091109173614.htm

taem

I would like you to quote the research where you found that carbs make people depressed please. I have sources that show otherwise but I am wait for you to show first.

Here's a study that shows higher fat diets are better for moods.

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN79_01/S0007114598000063a.pdf&code=dcabf272fda52039329e7a33e0a9df0e

High fat doesn't mean no grain/low complex carbs.

I don't know why I bother with these debates. I honestly couldn't give a **** one way or the other about carbs. I low carb because wheat makes me feel grotty and I don't like rice or potatoes, but it's accidental. I don't think anyone should be giving blanket statements one way or the other on this, as there are plenty of people who are healthier on higher carb, whole grain diets, and plenty who are healthier on high fat/protein ones. I think body type has a lot to do with it.

I agree that different diets for each individual, but I'm getting tired of blanket statements as well.

lockef

File not available. [S0007114598000063a.pdf].

Hmmm... that's weird. I found it on pubmed as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799

I'll try to see if I can find another link to the actual study.

Edit: First link
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alterations+in+mood+after+changing+to+a+low-fat+diet.&hl=en&as_sdt=1,44&as_sdtp=on

fteale

I would like you to quote the research where you found that carbs make people depressed please. I have sources that show otherwise but I am wait for you to show first.

Here's a study that shows higher fat diets are better for moods.

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN79_01/S0007114598000063a.pdf&code=dcabf272fda52039329e7a33e0a9df0e

High fat doesn't mean no grain/low complex carbs.

I don't know why I bother with these debates. I honestly couldn't give a **** one way or the other about carbs. I low carb because wheat makes me feel grotty and I don't like rice or potatoes, but it's accidental. I don't think anyone should be giving blanket statements one way or the other on this, as there are plenty of people who are healthier on higher carb, whole grain diets, and plenty who are healthier on high fat/protein ones. I think body type has a lot to do with it.

I agree that different diets for each individual, but I'm getting tired of blanket statements as well.

I think we are mostly on the same page on this one. I haven't disagreed with anything you have posted.

labgirl3

I think what this all boils down to is that everyone need to figure out what works best *for their own bodies.* If your current eating plan leaves you constantly hungry, struggling for the willpower to stay out of the fridge, exhausted, or less healthful than you were before you started, perhaps it's time for a switch.

I prefer not having to rely on my willpower to stay away from cookies and rolls. I like kicking my diet Coke habit to the curb, since I'm not constantly falling asleep on my desk. I enjoy not counting points or calories. I love being able to go to a wedding / party / restaurant without panicking that there won't be anything for me to eat (veggies, cheese, dips, and meat are pretty standard everywhere). I like traveling for work and not gaining weight, since it's no problem for me to enjoy a filet mignon and a caesar salad. I don't particularly like eating more veggies than I did before (I'm working on it!), but I know it's good for me. My doctor appreciated my weight loss, and also my bloodwork - which is significantly better than it was on a low fat, high carb diet.

There are some people who do just dandy on a high carb diet - they have no weight problem, and energy levels are fine. There are many more who are overweight, and struggle with eating low fat, whole grains since they are always hungry, tired, or sick. Those are the ones who may benefit from trying low carb for a couple of weeks.

taem

File not available. [S0007114598000063a.pdf].

Hmmm... that's weird. I found it on pubmed as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9505799

I'll try to see if I can find another link to the actual study.

Edit: First link
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Alterations+in+mood+after+changing+to+a+low-fat+diet.&hl=en&as_sdt=1,44&as_sdtp=on

Thanks for the source. I think, honestly, moods will be affected during the first few months of a dietary change, and this study was a 4 month study. The paper also admits that when people switch to a low fat due to health reasons, their moods did not change for the worse. Thanks you for your source.

That study also doesn't do a comparative study low carb vs low fat, it is a lower than usual fat study. Can you show me a source that claims that a mostly fat diet improves moods?

Thanks

bcattoes

If they link below is not good enough, try Googling the Iowa Women's Health Study (for one). You may have to pay to see the actual study and it will likely be very clinical and hard to understand if you are not a clinician.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/health-gains-from-whole-grains/

An intriguing report from the Iowa Women's Health Study linked whole-grain consumption with fewer deaths from noncardiac, noncancer causes. Compared with women who rarely or never ate whole-grain foods, those who had at least two or more servings a day were 30 percent less likely to have died from an inflammation-related condition over a 17-year period (7).

Cardiovascular Disease
Eating whole instead of refined grains substantially lowers total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or bad) cholesterol, triglycerides, and insulin levels. Any of these changes would be expected to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease. In the Harvard-based Nurses' Health Study, women who ate 2 to 3 servings of whole-grain products (mostly bread and breakfast cereals) each day were 30 percent less likely to have a heart attack or die from heart disease over a 10-year period than women who ate less than 1 serving per week (1). A recent meta-analysis of seven major studies showed that cardiovascular disease (heart attack, stroke, or the need for a procedure to bypass or open a clogged artery) was 21 percent less likely in people who ate 2.5 or more servings of whole-grain foods a day compared with those who ate less than 2 servings a week (2).

Type 2 Diabetes
In a study of more than 160,000 women whose health and dietary habits were followed for up to 18 years, those who averaged 2 to 3 servings of whole grains a day were 30 percent less likely to have developed type 2 diabetes than those who rarely ate whole grains (3). When the researchers combined these results with those of several other large studies, they found that eating an extra 2 servings of whole grains a day decreased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 21 percent.

This study compares whole grains to refined grains. Not whole grains to no (or very reduced) grains. I don't think there's any debate that whole grains are better than refined.

You are setting up a strawman (that we're arguing that whole grains are worse than refined), and then knocking it down. No one on this thread has said that whole grains are worse, or just as bad, as refined grains. We're saying that if you're overweight, many people will find success by limiting or eliminating refined AND whole grains entirely.

Not going argue the study anymore. Anyone that wants to research it will, others will jump to whatever conclusion they choose. But none of it will change that fact that in the study, women who ate more whole grains had better health. Whole grains are grains. So saying grains are bad for you (when 'you' means any shmo reading that post) is false.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=17556700

Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has recently been shown that oxidative stress, infection, and inflammation are predominant pathophysiologic factors for several major diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association of whole-grain intake with death attributed to noncardiovascular, noncancer inflammatory diseases.

DESIGN: Postmenopausal women (n = 41 836) aged 55-69 y at baseline in 1986 were followed for 17 y. After exclusions for cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, colitis, and liver cirrhosis at baseline, 27 312 participants remained, of whom 5552 died during the 17 y. A proportional hazards regression model was adjusted for age, smoking, adiposity, education, physical activity, and other dietary factors.

RESULTS: Inflammation-related death was inversely associated with whole-grain intake. Compared with the hazard ratios in women who rarely or never ate whole-grain foods, the hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.57, 0.83) for those who consumed 4-7 servings/wk, 0.79 (0.66, 0.95) for 7.5-10.5 servings/wk, 0.64 (0.53, 0.79) for 11-18.5 servings/wk, and 0.66 (0.54, 0.81) for >or=19 servings/wk (P for trend = 0.01). Previously reported inverse associations of whole-grain intake with total and coronary heart disease mortality persisted after 17 y of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in inflammatory mortality associated with habitual whole-grain intake was larger than that previously reported for coronary heart disease and diabetes. Because a variety of phytochemicals are found in whole grains that may directly or indirectly inhibit oxidative stress, and because oxidative stress is an inevitable consequence of inflammation, we suggest that oxidative stress reduction by constituents of whole grain is a likely mechanism for the protective effect.

TK421NotAtPost

LOL, the usual suspects at it again. It's quite sad....really.

Wilfred808

i ate simple carbs last night right before bed. guess whos still gaining weight at the rate he wants...... me.

linsben

i ate simple carbs last night right before bed. guess whos still gaining weight at the rate he wants...... me.

YUP! that would do it!

Wilfred808

i ate simple carbs last night right before bed. guess whos still gaining weight at the rate he wants...... me.

YUP! that would do it!

oh hai gawjuss. gaining weight is my goal. feels amazing to not be scared of carbs.

linsben

i ate simple carbs last night right before bed. guess whos still gaining weight at the rate he wants...... me.

YUP! that would do it!

oh hai gawjuss. gaining weight is my goal. feels amazing to not be scared of carbs.

Im glad you feel amazing eating garbage before bed. I wouldnt.

Wilfred808

i ate simple carbs last night right before bed. guess whos still gaining weight at the rate he wants...... me.

YUP! that would do it!

oh hai gawjuss. gaining weight is my goal. feels amazing to not be scared of carbs.

Im glad you feel amazing eating garbage before bed. I wouldnt.

it doesnt effect my body composition or overall health so why should i care?carbs arent garbage either

JennaM222

Carbs are THE only way I survive a hangover.

here here :drinker:

TK421NotAtPost

I try no longer to get involved with a low-carb, low-fat argument in the forums. Saying that, I ask that everyone listen to the podcast interview by Dr. John McDougall (low-fat) with Dr. Robert Atkin (low carb) because people who get involved cannot seem to open their mind to other possibilities. That's fine, but then there is no sense talking to myself, so I find the conversation useless. However, I do see some people on this thread that are open to listen to "the other side."

http://www.drmcdougall.com/mcdougallcast/p.php?file=2007-05-03_01_track_1.mp3

Atkins and McDougall both agree that sugar and refined carbs (processed, box food) is very bad for overweight or people with chronic disease. He does not bash complex carbs and in his original book, writes that people should eat complex carbs.

It is interesting that after Atkins, comes Lustig and Taubes who spout the same message about sugar.

taem, have you ever seen Dr. Joel Fuhrman's 3-steps to incredible health? I thought it was interesting. It's not going to stop me from eating a lot of fresh cut meat, but interesting nonetheless.

I have respect for McDougal, Atkins and Fuhrman. Taubes is a quack though.... Actually, I take that back. Isn't that term reserved for wanna-be doctors? So I guess you have to be a doctor first instead of a journalist who specializes in sensationalism and controversial topics to be called a quack.

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.

taem

I try no longer to get involved with a low-carb, low-fat argument in the forums. Saying that, I ask that everyone listen to the podcast interview by Dr. John McDougall (low-fat) with Dr. Robert Atkin (low carb) because people who get involved cannot seem to open their mind to other possibilities. That's fine, but then there is no sense talking to myself, so I find the conversation useless. However, I do see some people on this thread that are open to listen to "the other side."

http://www.drmcdougall.com/mcdougallcast/p.php?file=2007-05-03_01_track_1.mp3

Atkins and McDougall both agree that sugar and refined carbs (processed, box food) is very bad for overweight or people with chronic disease. He does not bash complex carbs and in his original book, writes that people should eat complex carbs.

It is interesting that after Atkins, comes Lustig and Taubes who spout the same message about sugar.

taem, have you ever seen Dr. Joel Fuhrman's 3-steps to incredible health? I thought it was interesting. It's not going to stop me from eating a lot of fresh cut meat, but interesting nonetheless.

I have respect for McDougal, Atkins and Fuhrman. Taubes is a quack though.... Actually, I take that back. Isn't that term reserved for wanna-be doctors? So I guess you have to be a doctor first instead of a journalist who specializes in sensationalism and controversial topics to be called a quack.

I have no problems with "clean" sources of food, including meat. I have a problem with our tainted food supply, I guess that has become my new stance on diet. Everything else becomes our problem with abusing food (over eating, not eating, emotional eating etc.)

Taubes did the world a favor and say to us we need to look at the research with "new" eyes, and so I do acknowledge him for that. Does he have the clinical experience like Atkins, McDougall, Furhman? If I were to trust my diet to someone, it would have to be to someone who has clinical trial experience, I think we can all agree to that!

I haven't seen Furhman's presentation yet sorry. I have his book, Eat to Live which I will read after Taubes, Campbell, but I am still stuck on Lisle's Pleasure Trap. I really think Paelo dieters will really find Lisle interesting as he talks about nature and our body's nervous system and the artificial stimulants that affect it, as well as the motivational triad. He is a vegetarian but I think secretly think/assume that is because he won't kill animals. If you are interested, I can send you a few of his lectures.

Grokette

I try no longer to get involved with a low-carb, low-fat argument in the forums. Saying that, I ask that everyone listen to the podcast interview by Dr. John McDougall (low-fat) with Dr. Robert Atkin (low carb) because people who get involved cannot seem to open their mind to other possibilities. That's fine, but then there is no sense talking to myself, so I find the conversation useless. However, I do see some people on this thread that are open to listen to "the other side."

http://www.drmcdougall.com/mcdougallcast/p.php?file=2007-05-03_01_track_1.mp3

Atkins and McDougall both agree that sugar and refined carbs (processed, box food) is very bad for overweight or people with chronic disease. He does not bash complex carbs and in his original book, writes that people should eat complex carbs.

It is interesting that after Atkins, comes Lustig and Taubes who spout the same message about sugar.

taem, have you ever seen Dr. Joel Fuhrman's 3-steps to incredible health? I thought it was interesting. It's not going to stop me from eating a lot of fresh cut meat, but interesting nonetheless.

I have respect for McDougal, Atkins and Fuhrman. Taubes is a quack though.... Actually, I take that back. Isn't that term reserved for wanna-be doctors? So I guess you have to be a doctor first instead of a journalist who specializes in sensationalism and controversial topics to be called a quack.

I have no problems with "clean" sources of food, including meat. I have a problem with our tainted food supply, I guess that has become my new stance on diet. Everything else becomes our problem with abusing food (over eating, not eating, emotional eating etc.)

Taubes did the world a favor and say to us we need to look at the research with "new" eyes, and so I do acknowledge him for that. Does he have the clinical experience like Atkins, McDougall, Furhman? If I were to trust my diet to someone, it would have to be to someone who has clinical trial experience, I think we can all agree to that!

I haven't seen Furhman's presentation yet sorry. I have his book, Eat to Live which I will read after Taubes, Campbell, but I am still stuck on Lisle's Pleasure Trap. I really think Paelo dieters will really find Lisle interesting as he talks about nature and our body's nervous system and the artificial stimulants that affect it, as well as the motivational triad. He is a vegetarian but I think secretly think/assume that is because he won't kill animals. If you are interested, I can send you a few of his lectures.

I am very interested in these lectures.

TK421NotAtPost

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:

labgirl3

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:

You're arguing against a message that Taubes isn't even putting out there. He isn't suggesting that obese people don't overeat - quite the contrary. He's asking WHY they overeat (especially carbs) in the first place. Have you actually read through his book? If so, you might want to read it again, since you clearly missed his entire point.

Acg67

You're arguing against a message that Taubes isn't even putting out there. He isn't suggesting that obese people don't overeat - quite the contrary. He's asking WHY they overeat (especially carbs) in the first place. Have you actually read through his book? If so, you might want to read it again, since you clearly missed his entire point.

i've read his books, he does happen to say that the energy balance equation does not hold because according to 1 study the obese ate the same amt of kcals as the lean and were gaining weight. the issue as mentioned above is that, that study relied on self reported data which is notoriously inaccurate.

Taubes is completely wrong in his theories, he mentions that only CHO makes us fat, which is due to the fact that CHO spikes insulin, however he leaves out that protein is highly insulingenic as well. my fav qutoe about GCBC, "GCBC is cherry picked science mixed with a dose of fantasy"

labgirl3

A few select quotes from Why We Get Fat:

Health experts think that the first law is relevant to why we get fat because they say to themselves and then to us, as the The New York Times did, “Those who consume more calories than they expend in energy will gain weight.” This is true. It has to be. To get fatter and heavier, we have to overeat. We have to consume more calories than we expend. That’s a given. But thermodynamics tells us nothing about why this happens, why we consume more calories than we expend. It only says that if we do, we will get heavier, and if we get heavier, then we did.

Taubes, Gary (2010-12-28). Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It (p. 74). Knopf. Kindle Edition.

Overeating means we’re consuming more energy than we’re expending. It says the same thing in a different way. Neither happens to answer the question why. Why do we take in more energy than we expend? Why do we overeat? Why do we get fatter?*

Taubes, Gary (2010-12-28). Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It (p. 75). Knopf. Kindle Edition. Taubes, Gary (2010-12-28). Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It (p. 74). Knopf. Kindle Edition.

I can't seem to find the one study that you're referring to (where obese people underreported their food intake) - do you have a chapter or reference? There are plenty of other studies backing up his hypothesis that something other than calories-in / calories-out matter - impoverished, obese Native Americans, obese mothers with starving children, obese rats with removed ovaries, etc.

hbmcracer

Is this thread still going on?

I just wanted to say that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and was not hungry until lunch. For lunch I had jerk chicken (lean breast), kaluah pork, bbq short ribs, coconut curry vegetables, and a salad, yum!

Before I started low carb I would've had 1 or 2 snacks (more carbs) between breakfast and lunch and would be tired. I have so much energy right now that I feel like knocking down walls!!

bcattoes

Is this thread still going on?

I just wanted to say that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and was not hungry until lunch. For lunch I had jerk chicken (lean breast), kaluah pork, bbq short ribs, coconut curry vegetables, and a salad, yum!

Before I started low carb I would've had 1 or 2 snacks (more carbs) between breakfast and lunch and would be tired. I have so much energy right now that I feel like knocking down walls!!

I had a glass of chocolate soy milk for breakfast (7 a.m.) and wasn't hungry till lunch (noon). But I can't see how that, or your eggs and bacon, means anything about low carb vs not low carb.

linsben

Is this thread still going on?

I just wanted to say that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast and was not hungry until lunch. For lunch I had jerk chicken (lean breast), kaluah pork, bbq short ribs, coconut curry vegetables, and a salad, yum!

Before I started low carb I would've had 1 or 2 snacks (more carbs) between breakfast and lunch and would be tired. I have so much energy right now that I feel like knocking down walls!!

I had a glass of chocolate soy milk for breakfast (7 a.m.) and wasn't hungry till lunch (noon). But I can't see how that, or your eggs and bacon, means anything about low carb vs not low carb.

You should research the effects soy milk can have on your health. I read a few pages about it in the Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith and was very shocked as i used to drink soy milk and eat a lot of soy processed foods when i was a vegetarian. I havnt done any additional research as of yet but you JUST reminded me so now i shall!
Thanks!

hbmcracer

I had a glass of chocolate soy milk for breakfast (7 a.m.) and wasn't hungry till lunch (noon). But I can't see how that, or your eggs and bacon, means anything about low carb vs not low carb.

For me it means that I stay full longer and am happier eating low carb.