question about carbs

MikeSEA

Please read this for a better understanding: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html

You are such a jerk. And you obviously didn't even read my post. I DID NOT discount having to consume less when trying to lose weight, just that it's easier if you go about it by eating fewer carbs.

Plus, everything I wrote about insulin is proven science. Look it up, I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Other than that, I'm over this thread. It's not like I researched a reason to be extra unhealthy. I spend A LOT (probably too much) time researching this stuff because I love it. I started in February, and I didn't discover Paleo until early August. I'm just doing what I honestly think is best for me from EVERYTHING that I've learned thus far. So I give up. I will not be treated like an idiot.

Is anyone else at all amused that she's snippy about being treated badly when she entered into the conversation by saying:

Hmm that's funny, because that's not what any of the peer-reviewed research I've read says.

which is essentially just a taunt since no research was actually given. Did you want to be snarky AND have the luxury of being respected?

Timdog57

I actually don't think that's the case... I think everyone has agreed on that!

Maybe in this thread, but not in the threads I've seen today

Some people believe that a 500 calorie deficit with a 100% carb diet < a 500 calorie surplus with a 0% carb diet in terms of FAT LOSS.

It's mind blowing knowing that people believe that.

I guess I missed something because I haven't seen anyone say anything like that. There's obviously disagreement on the boards today, but there does seem to be agreement that you have to eat a deficit to lose wieght and that you will lose weight if you eat a deficit.

mynameisuntz

I guess I missed something because I haven't seen anyone say anything like that. There's obviously disagreement on the boards today, but there does seem to be agreement that you have to eat a deficit to lose wieght and that you will lose weight if you eat a deficit.

Some girl with a ballerina for her picture.

Elizabeth_C34

You are such a jerk. And you obviously didn't even read my post. I DID NOT discount having to consume less when trying to lose weight, just that it's easier if you go about it by eating fewer carbs.

Plus, everything I wrote about insulin is proven science. Look it up, I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Other than that, I'm over this thread. It's not like I researched a reason to be extra unhealthy. I spend A LOT (probably too much) time researching this stuff because I love it. I started in February, and I didn't discover Paleo until early August. I'm just doing what I honestly think is best for me from EVERYTHING that I've learned thus far. So I give up. I will not be treated like an idiot.

No need to resort to name-calling or getting defensive. I don't think anything Untz has said has been mean, and he hasn't called you a name either though you have now resorted to doing exactly that by calling him a jerk. If you want to tout a low-carb lifestyle and claim that this is fitting for everyone, you should be prepared with peer-reviewed research from unbiased and competently-executed studies to back it up. People have the right to challenge your opinions on a public forum even if you don't like it.

Correction: Your comment was directed at Hunter. Again, I still think it's inappropriate to call him a jerk.

mynameisuntz

No need to resort to name-calling or getting defensive. I don't think anything Untz has said has been mean, and he hasn't called you a name either though you have now resorted to doing exactly that by calling him a jerk. If you want to tout a low-carb lifestyle and claim that this is fitting for everyone, you should be prepared with peer-reviewed research from unbiased and competently-executed studies to back it up. People have the right to challenge your opinions on a public forum even if you don't like it.

She was directing this at Hunter :P she hasn't even responded to me, which is equally hurtful :[

neanderthin

I didn't do so well making my post short, but o-well.

Also interesting to note: My best friend is working for her PHD in Tissue/Biomedical Engineering (we met in undergrad where we both studied Biomedical Engineering). She knows how I eat, which is Primal/Paleo, but she always just gives me that look like "yea whatever, we'll see what she's up to next month."

Yesterday I got a message that said this:

"You know, now that i think about it... I think I remember reading a journal article for my cardio biomechanics class that links atherosclerosis to carb intake, as it can increase the stiffness in the artery by causing smooth muscle cells to migrate to the endothelial layer, in turn causing an inflammatory response and then atherosclerosis eventually."

Which was stuff I was already researching. I was so excited/happy. It's only a matter of time Paleo friends

Paleo isn't necessarily a low carb diet. The average macro breakdown taken from the ethnographic atlas is around 65/35 Animal/Plant, which obviously takes into account the dramatic swings from that average. I believe the benefit of a paleo type diet is in the increased protein and increased natural plant intake......very satiating and inherently healthy but to say that it requires under XXXX carbs is dogma not based on fact and more about carbaphobia imo. Diet is only part of the overall picture of longevity and quality of life............I like the notion of paleo and do consume a lower carb diet, not low, or paleo, and completely agree that it has many health advantages but taking it to some type of biblical extreme is counter productive considering primal/paleo really doesn't exist unless you go and find a village to live in where civilization hasn't had any influence on it.......and I bet they don't consume under 50g's of carbs a day anyway. Cheers.

Drunkadelic

I don't really know how this thread became an attack on me.

Although I do understand the science, I unfortunately have a big girl job and can't afford the time to troll this thread anymore. I should never have responded in the first place. I know better. I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to scream at a wall. It's not like anyone is listening anyway. When your mind is closed, you will never learn.

I firmly believe that everyone should just eat they way they want to eat. And I don't think carbohydrates are the devil. I just keep mine low because it works for me. I still count my calories. But I'm eating less now and feeling more full. Heaven forbid I try to share that with someone.

SergeantSunshine_reused

Seems to to be a typical carbophobic

step 1.) Enter thread and start a carb war
step 2.) Make huge claims while presenting no studies to back it up
step 3.) Get offended when proven wrong, through a fit, and start name calling

did i miss something? xD

HunterCML

Yeah, she was referring to me; I don't believe that trying to aware someone on the truth counts as being a "jerk".

HunterCML

Seems to to be a typical carbophobic

step 1.) Enter thread and start a carb war
step 2.) Make huge claims while presenting no studies to back it up
step 3.) Get offended when proven wrong, through a fit, and start name calling

did i miss something? xD

Nope. Very accurate.

HonkyTonks

Sorry if this has already been answered but I couldn't see it. How many carbs is considered low carb? I've been trying to cut out carbs, but I seem to always have about 100g a day! Most of it comes from the fruits & veg I eat, as well as milk that I have with my coffee (which I simply can't live without!) If I am aiming to go mostly low carb (and sort of low GI) should I be cutting down on that? I could try my coffee black.

joejccva71

Ang-

It's one thing to cycle your carbs or do CKD or something. But to say that you burn more fat by eating "less" or "no" carbs isn't very good wording. You still need to eat in a calorie deficit regardless.

You can't eat a surplus but eat no carbs everyday out of the week and expect to lose weight / burn fat...etc etc.

It just won't happen. Just want to make sure it's clear because remember that number one priority is calorie deficit. Number two is consuming sufficient protein and fat macros. Carbs aren't necessary.

I've been saying this every week to people on my friend's list and have made posts on the forums here about this for the past 3-4 months atleast.

Drunkadelic

Paleo isn't necessarily a low carb diet. The average macro breakdown taken from the ethnographic atlas is around 65/35 Animal/Plant, which obviously takes into account the dramatic swings from that average. I believe the benefit of a paleo type diet is in the increased protein and increased natural plant intake......very satiating and inherently healthy but to say that it requires under XXXX carbs is dogma not based on fact and more about carbaphobia imo. Diet is only part of the overall picture of longevity and quality of life............I like the notion of paleo and do consume a lower carb diet, not low, or paleo, and completely agree that it has many health advantages but taking it to some type of biblical extreme is counter productive considering primal/paleo really doesn't exist unless you go and find a village to live in where civilization hasn't had any influence on it.......and I bet they don't consume under 50g's of carbs a day anyway. Cheers.

And I completely agree. I'm doing this just because it's MY optimal way to lose fat. If I were happy how I was, I'd be eating way more carbs

MikeSEA

I don't really know how this thread became an attack on me.

Although I do understand the science, I unfortunately have a big girl job and can't afford the time to troll this thread anymore. I should never have responded in the first place. I know better. I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to scream at a wall. It's not like anyone is listening anyway. When your mind is closed, you will never learn.

I firmly believe that everyone should just eat they way they want to eat. And I don't think carbohydrates are the devil. I just keep mine low because it works for me. I still count my calories. But I'm eating less now and feeling more full. Heaven forbid I try to share that with someone.

So just to be clear here, you've basically just said that because someone isn't taking your word for it, they have a closed mind? Makes perfect sense. Have fun with that big girl job. You're right, though, you should have never responded in the first place if your plan was to make baseless assertions that rely on our faith in your research abilities as validation.

joejccva71

Let's try to keep it civil peeps.

Drunkadelic

Ang-

It's one thing to cycle your carbs or do CKD or something. But to say that you burn more fat by eating "less" or "no" carbs isn't very good wording. You still need to eat in a calorie deficit regardless.

You can't eat a surplus but eat no carbs everyday out of the week and expect to lose weight / burn fat...etc etc.

It just won't happen. Just want to make sure it's clear because remember that number one priority is calorie deficit. Number two is consuming sufficient protein and fat macros. Carbs aren't necessary.

:sad:

I KNOW that. I really do. That's not what I was trying to say AT ALL.

I give up. I hope you will still be my friend Joe..

DEEDLYNN

Seems to to be a typical carbophobic

step 1.) Enter thread and start a carb war
step 2.) Make huge claims while presenting no studies to back it up
step 3.) Get offended when proven wrong, through a fit, and start name calling

did i miss something? xD

OK...now that's the first thing on this thread that actually made me crack a smile!!!!

joejccva71

Ang-

It's one thing to cycle your carbs or do CKD or something. But to say that you burn more fat by eating "less" or "no" carbs isn't very good wording. You still need to eat in a calorie deficit regardless.

You can't eat a surplus but eat no carbs everyday out of the week and expect to lose weight / burn fat...etc etc.

It just won't happen. Just want to make sure it's clear because remember that number one priority is calorie deficit. Number two is consuming sufficient protein and fat macros. Carbs aren't necessary.

:sad:

I KNOW that. I really do. That's not what I was trying to say AT ALL.

I give up. I hope you will still be my friend Joe..

LOL of course. I must have misread your post then. My bad.

hpsnickers1

Hello to the O. Poster,

Take a good look at my profile pic. That is me. I eat a high fat, low/no carb diet. I have tons of energy, look great, am healthy and never tired. You have no need for carbs. in your diet. Studies actually show that your metabolisim slows down with a caloric intake, no matter if it's allot or a little, that is mostly carbs.

If you want to enjoy food, look into paleo living or the caveman diet. As a native american I'm proud to say that my tribe has been fighting terrorisim (including the "western diet") since 1493. I tried the western diet of high carbs this year when a doctor prescribe more calories for me, and I immedietely got diabetes. That was with a restricted calorie diet! Went back to my native diet and actually can eat more calories, exercise less, and enjoy tons of veggies, proteins, fats, creams, cheeses, oils with out weight gain.

Also, Watch out for the anti low carbers, their hate speech, attacks and love of scaring the pants off of the OP. AND please do your own research! Best wishes.

LIKE!!

Elizabeth_C34

I don't really know how this thread became an attack on me.

Although I do understand the science, I unfortunately have a big girl job and can't afford the time to troll this thread anymore.

Maybe because you jumped into this thread touting a controversial claim in an open publc forum without being able to defend your case logically when challenged and thus reverted to name-calling and incinuations that the rest of us don't "have a big girl job" and are "closed minded" because we don't agree with you.

hpsnickers1

Nope. Contrary to what people will tell you: carbs do not make you fat. Excess calories do.

Sorry, I know this is conventional wisdom, but if you look at the biochemistry this is wrong.

All calories are NOT created equal. Many people, if their metabolisms are in the mid-range, find that the calories-in / calories-out formula works for them. And so they believe it will work for everyone. But unfortunately, that is NOT true. Our bodies are more complex than that, and the chemical processes that create energy out of carbohydrates & sugar are very different from the chemical reactions when you get energy from fat & protein.

IF your metabolism is more efficient at processing one type of calorie over the other, then you need to adjust your ratios to whatever your particular body needs. Even if that's very different from what the FDA recommends, or from what other people are doing. My doctor recommended, for me, a ratio of 5% carbs, 30% fat, 65% protein. Since I've been doing that, I've been able to eat *more* calories than before and I've started losing weight for the first time in my life.

If you go over your "limit" on carbs, and you don't notice a weight gain, then your body probably is good at processing them, so there's nothing to worry about. On the other hand, if you are gaining weight, then I would definitely try lowering the carb level. One difference between carbs/sugars and other kinds of calories is that they are more easily stored as fat. If you eat more protein than you need, the extra is more likely to just get passed on through your body. But if you eat more carbs than your body needs, they're more likely to end up as fat.

My advice is just to listen to your body. Everyone means well, but they can only tell you what worked for *them*. And everyone's metabolism is different, so what worked for them may or may not work for you.

Good luck!

I like this. I learned through research that fat is good for us. Very, very good and essential to life. Same with protein. My experiment on myself showed me that my body doesn't process carbs very well. I will gain fat and retain water when eating high-carb yet under eating on calories. I have been through this in the last few weeks. I even have issues with fruit and a lot of veggies.

I got this from another MFP person: BE YOUR OWN SCIENTIST!!

Steven

Sorry, MyFitnessPal folks,

Just found some evidence at bodybuilding.com that certain users (you'll guess which) have been gloating on threads there about their successful trolling here. They should disappear shortly.

Thanks for your patience,
Steven
MyFitnessPal Staff

hpsnickers1

Sorry, MyFitnessPal folks,

Just found some evidence at bodybuilding.com that certain users (you'll guess which) have been gloating on threads there about their successful trolling here. They should disappear shortly.

Thanks for your patience,
Steven
MyFitnessPal Staff

Thank you. I've seen some past trolling and it was angering to read their insults over there.

Timdog57

Sorry if this has already been answered but I couldn't see it. How many carbs is considered low carb? I've been trying to cut out carbs, but I seem to always have about 100g a day! Most of it comes from the fruits & veg I eat, as well as milk that I have with my coffee (which I simply can't live without!) If I am aiming to go mostly low carb (and sort of low GI) should I be cutting down on that? I could try my coffee black.

Personally I aim for the 100g mark on average. If I'm going to have a higher carb day I try to make it on a day I've worked out. I think if your carbs are coming from veggies, fruits, and some dairy, it really doesn't matter whether you're over 100g or not though. Sounds like you're doing fine to me.

Is it working for you?

joejccva71

I consider under 80g to be low carb. When I cycle them I try to stay under 50g on low days although it doesn't matter honestly.

Timdog57

You are such a jerk. And you obviously didn't even read my post. I DID NOT discount having to consume less when trying to lose weight, just that it's easier if you go about it by eating fewer carbs.

Plus, everything I wrote about insulin is proven science. Look it up, I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Other than that, I'm over this thread. It's not like I researched a reason to be extra unhealthy. I spend A LOT (probably too much) time researching this stuff because I love it. I started in February, and I didn't discover Paleo until early August. I'm just doing what I honestly think is best for me from EVERYTHING that I've learned thus far. So I give up. I will not be treated like an idiot.

No need to resort to name-calling or getting defensive. I don't think anything Untz has said has been mean, and he hasn't called you a name either though you have now resorted to doing exactly that by calling him a jerk. If you want to tout a low-carb lifestyle and claim that this is fitting for everyone, you should be prepared with peer-reviewed research from unbiased and competently-executed studies to back it up. People have the right to challenge your opinions on a public forum even if you don't like it.

Correction: Your comment was directed at Hunter. Again, I still think it's inappropriate to call him a jerk.

In fairness though, no one here has presented ANY peer-reviewed research to back up thier arguments. The best I've seen in the way of support has been some articles by Lyle which have a very vague relation to the point that was attempting to be made.

I'm certainly not defending or condoning the name-calling, I'm just saying that you are asking for a standard that no one is following.

Personally, I'd love to see some support of the arguements, instead of just people stating things as fact. I really like the debate, until it gets personal and rude, and when it includes supported statements. I know I have my opinion on this topic, but I'd really like to find something to prove me wrong if I am wrong. In short, I'd really like to learn something from the debate.

Timdog57

I consider under 80g to be low carb. When I cycle them I try to stay under 50g on low days although it doesn't matter honestly.

I would definitely consider under 50g to be low carbs, and I've read that ketosis can start with sustained intake of 75g or less.

joejccva71

I consider under 80g to be low carb. When I cycle them I try to stay under 50g on low days although it doesn't matter honestly.

I would definitely consider under 50g to be low carbs, and I've read that ketosis can start with sustained intake of 75g or less.

Yea Tim. Just depends on the tolerance level of a person. It took me 4 days of eating under 30g of carbs to get traces of ketones. Although I don't trust the sticks so much. Not convinced on their accuracy.

hockey7fan

I consider under 80g to be low carb. When I cycle them I try to stay under 50g on low days although it doesn't matter honestly.

I would definitely consider under 50g to be low carbs, and I've read that ketosis can start with sustained intake of 75g or less.

Yea Tim. Just depends on the tolerance level of a person. It took me 4 days of eating under 30g of carbs to get traces of ketones. Although I don't trust the sticks so much. Not convinced on their accuracy.

I get medium traces of ketones on 50 grams of carbs a day. I really believe everyone's body processes calorie intake differently. Having Celiac disease I know my absorbtion of the nutrients from food is different than the average person without it.

cirellim

To sum it up in short; so long as your overall daily intake of calorie is below your maintenance/base calorie level (the amount of calories you must eat in order to not gain or lose weight) than you will continue to lose weight. Now, how much under this baseline is what determines the amount of weight you will lose.