Is what he said correct about Carbs?
Options
Replies
-
Then I will die a delicious death. (Edit - where oh where is the chocolate in that picture?)
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
I was lookin' for a picture of carbs that are very clearly not unhealthy.
Chocolate should be its own category of awesomeness.
I don't think carbs are the root of all evil, although I do think refined grain has little to offer us other than a cheap source of calories. Believe me, I love the stuff, been a huge bread eater my whole life and I still enjoy some from time to time. The picture is a bit silly though. You think that picture looks good and healthy because of conditioning over your lifetime in the same way that we see bacon cooking or a jar full of lard and think it looks unhealthy and we clutch our chests as if the mere sight of it will clog our arteries. LOL
Big chocolate fan too, love Dark Chocolate with Sea Salt and Almonds, amazing.0 -
I do agree with that and said that exact thing a few post up. However there is a metabolic advantage when it comes to macro division and when a higher protein diet is compared to the SAD or high carb diet (60-65%) the higher protein diet does seem to produce better weight loss. I think this is where a lot of the confusion started a decade ago regarding these comparisons. The low carb diet was the template for those comparisons with that high carb diet and somehow the data got lost in the translation. It wasn't actually the low carb diet that facilitated that observed metabolic advantage but the higher protein content in the low carb diet. anyway from there it was extrapulated that if the low carb diet was better then it was a ketogenic diet by default. The problem with this theory is in what mediated that metabolic advantage, which was thermodynamics. The thermic effect of protein which is fairly well known now, facilitated that metabolic advantage cpompared to a high carb with much of it coming from refined carbs aka the SAD diet. Getting back to the ketogenic diet and the myth that seems to have been perpetuated that it will burn fat as an energy source and somehow will allow for more weight loss is flawed simply because of the law of thermodynamics. The ketogenic diet is generally very low in carbs and high in fat and when compared to a diet that is equally as high in protein, that advantage I spoke of disappears and your right, in ward studies there clearly shows no advantage. But if you replace some of the calories coming from fat, which has no thermic effect to speak of and replace them with more carbs, like fiberous veg TEF can be increased simply because of the differences in TEF between fat and vegetables. Basically any higher protein diet will regardless of carb content shows that the ketogenic diet is not necessary if one is thinking it does somehow facilitate more weight loss compared to any other diet. imoI still think there may be some metabolic advantage of a low carb diet for some people, although it's merely a gut feel on my part. It doesn't seem to apply to me though.
However, what does it really matter? If low carb helps some people lose weight more effectively than the point is moot. Also if the carbs eliminated are refined, process foods like bread, sugar etc. then most probably they are going to improve their overall health as well. Sounds like a win win to me.
and yet controlled metabolic ward studies show there is no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets0 -
Most of the things in that photos are unhealthy for me. I'd take the apple and orange, natural source of vitamins. Occasionally the squash and carrots or maybe a splurge with a little rice. The rest means digestive hell and weight gain, increased appetite. I may splurge on them once in awhile like someone will have a little champagne on special occasions but I can't make them part of my routine lifestyle if I want to be healthy and slimmer.
I love carbs but the place they have in my diet are as sources of vitamins (veggies and limited fruit) or guilty pleasures that I pay for with discomfort. (grains) I can't see grains as sources of nutrition, most need to be "enriched" to add anything more than bulk and appetite stimulation.0 -
I disagree, because all the macro analysis/fine-tuning in the world isn't going to help you lose weight if you're still eating over your TDEE. To say that calories in versus calories out is "useless" is ignoring the fundamental concept of weight loss. However you achieve it (low carb, no carb, all carb, all twinkies, whatever), you must eat fewer calories than you expend in order to lose weight. Managing macros is important for health and fitness goals and providing a greater chance at success based on personal preference and biology, but you have to do step A (determine calories in) before you do step B (determine how to get those calories in).The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight.
Leptin doesn't change the calories in versus calories out equation. It just makes adhering to the 'calories in' half of the equation more or less challenging, depending on how your body regulates and responds to leptin. You are correct that managing macros can help with regulation of appetite (and thus make it more likely that one will stay within their calorie goal), but in the end you still have to adhere to the correct 'calories in' level.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.
It's pretty clear you are not actually reading my posts. We gain weight due to excess calorie intake, not arguing that at all. Taubes also says it's a tautology, btw.
So you look at a guy who is 100 lb overweight and you say, "you're fat because you eat too much". I think the fat guy knows that, everyone knows that. It doesn't help him lose weight though. He may try to cut his calories but find the cravings and hunger almost impossible to resist. He tries to exercise but find it has little impact unless he controls his intake as well. The question is, why has he been driven to overeat and why does he find it so hard to reduce his intake enough to lose some weight? THAT is why calories in/out is "useless" it tells us nothing than what is obviously true.
I AM reading your posts, and it's pretty clear that you're confusing utility with sufficiency. Is calories in versus calories out useless? No, it is necessary for weight management. Is calories in versus calories out SUFFICIENT for weight loss? Not for everybody. It is NECESSARY for all, but not SUFFICIENT for some.0 -
Your brain needs glucose...so you need some carbs every day.0
-
Your brain needs glucose...so you need some carbs every day.
Funny, can't you get glucose from amino acids?0 -
Human physiology has adapted to supply all the glucose the body requires in the absence of carboydrates and why carbohydrates are not considered essential nutirents. Ever hear of the ice age?Your brain needs glucose...so you need some carbs every day.0 -
I still think there may be some metabolic advantage of a low carb diet for some people, although it's merely a gut feel on my part. It doesn't seem to apply to me though.
However, what does it really matter? If low carb helps some people lose weight more effectively than the point is moot. Also if the carbs eliminated are refined, process foods like bread, sugar etc. then most probably they are going to improve their overall health as well. Sounds like a win win to me.
and yet controlled metabolic ward studies show there is no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets
Metabolic ward studies can be useful but they are usually short term and often have their own issues with design. The fact is, it's incredibly difficult to do any sort of long term study on real human beings.
Besides, I can sit here and tell you there are studies indicating anything, so if you are going to reference research, provide a link so we can all be elucidated.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/20/10/1104.full.pdf
http://www.ajcn.org/content/21/11/1291.full.pdf
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/11/4480.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968851
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23190730 -
Then I will die a delicious death. (Edit - where oh where is the chocolate in that picture?)
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
I was lookin' for a picture of carbs that are very clearly not unhealthy. Chocolate should be its own category of awesomeness.
I don't think carbs are the root of all evil, although I do think refined grain has little to offer us other than a cheap source of calories. Believe me, I love the stuff, been a huge bread eater my whole life and I still enjoy some from time to time. The picture is a bit silly though. You think that picture looks good and healthy because of conditioning over your lifetime in the same way that we see bacon cooking or a jar full of lard and think it looks unhealthy and we clutch our chests as if the mere sight of it will clog our arteries. LOL
Big chocolate fan too, love Dark Chocolate with Sea Salt and Almonds, amazing.
Nodding. Yup agree with you. I eat carbs, just choose not to eat a ton of them or refined carbs that have a bajillion ingredients in them. The more pure the better IMHO.0 -
I disagree, because all the macro analysis/fine-tuning in the world isn't going to help you lose weight if you're still eating over your TDEE. To say that calories in versus calories out is "useless" is ignoring the fundamental concept of weight loss. However you achieve it (low carb, no carb, all carb, all twinkies, whatever), you must eat fewer calories than you expend in order to lose weight. Managing macros is important for health and fitness goals and providing a greater chance at success based on personal preference and biology, but you have to do step A (determine calories in) before you do step B (determine how to get those calories in).The macros may help indirectly more than you allude too. For example, if you believe some of the research on Leptin, reducing carb intake may result in greater Leptin Sensitivity resulting in better regulation of appetite leading to a reduction in calories. So yes, calories are important, but the macro ratios can help you control the intake. What's interesting here is that it shows how useless calories in vs calories out is in helping people to lose weight.
Leptin doesn't change the calories in versus calories out equation. It just makes adhering to the 'calories in' half of the equation more or less challenging, depending on how your body regulates and responds to leptin. You are correct that managing macros can help with regulation of appetite (and thus make it more likely that one will stay within their calorie goal), but in the end you still have to adhere to the correct 'calories in' level.
Arguably yes, but the fact that remains is that calories in vs calories out is pretty useless to many people who need to lose weight. They need help with appetite regulation. It's easy to judge and think the overweight person lacks control when in reality it's extremely difficult to resist a compulsion driven by our biochemistry. This compulsion may well be far more deranged in an obese person than in a thin person making the advice to just get some will power completely meaningless. Taubes was probably being sensationalistic but if you read both his books completely you can draw your own conclusion based on his research that calories do matter but macros and other factors are potentially more helpful variables to consider when attempting to lose weight, especially a lot of weight.
It's pretty clear you are not actually reading my posts. We gain weight due to excess calorie intake, not arguing that at all. Taubes also says it's a tautology, btw.
So you look at a guy who is 100 lb overweight and you say, "you're fat because you eat too much". I think the fat guy knows that, everyone knows that. It doesn't help him lose weight though. He may try to cut his calories but find the cravings and hunger almost impossible to resist. He tries to exercise but find it has little impact unless he controls his intake as well. The question is, why has he been driven to overeat and why does he find it so hard to reduce his intake enough to lose some weight? THAT is why calories in/out is "useless" it tells us nothing than what is obviously true.
I AM reading your posts, and it's pretty clear that you're confusing utility with sufficiency. Is calories in versus calories out useless? No, it is necessary for weight management. Is calories in versus calories out SUFFICIENT for weight loss? Not for everybody. It is NECESSARY for all, but not SUFFICIENT for some.
Right, you are agreeing with me essentially. You're just arguing semantics at this point. Of course the fat dude needs to know that calories are important but if that doesn't help him control his intake then it is useless to him. Can we agree on that? 0 -
Thanks, I'll take a look at these when I'm not supposed to be working. 0 -
Okay, couldn't help but take a look at the first one. Interesting, small sample, but then it's pretty much impossible to do a metabolic ward study of 10,000 dudes, so fair enough.
Okay, so no apparent metabolic advantage shown in that study, what's interesting is that the HFLC group refused food... wow... a bunch of fat dudes, on a diet and actually turning down food... as a former pretty damn fat dude, now a just somewhat fat dude, I can say that eating my previous HCLF diet I would never turn down food, in fact, I could eat a great deal before my body told me to stop. Certainly supports the argument that HFLC diets result in less hunger.0 -
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
I have Celiac disease -- most of the carbs in that picture could kill me. LOL0 -
Just my two cents. I eat no processed food, no wheat in any form at all. My only carbs take from fruits and vegetables, and mostly good fats as main fuel. I just checked and have no more than 50g / day. I can't see any reason to have more carbs. It works for me, I feel much better that at the times of bread, cakes and so on. I don't miss them. Most people don't understand and can't imagine how I can live without them.
Everyone is different, take your way and be happy !0 -
I do agree with that and said that exact thing a few post up. However there is a metabolic advantage when it comes to macro division and when a higher protein diet is compared to the SAD or high carb diet (60-65%) the higher protein diet does seem to produce better weight loss. I think this is where a lot of the confusion started a decade ago regarding these comparisons. The low carb diet was the template for those comparisons with that high carb diet and somehow the data got lost in the translation. It wasn't actually the low carb diet that facilitated that observed metabolic advantage but the higher protein content in the low carb diet. anyway from there it was extrapulated that if the low carb diet was better then it was a ketogenic diet by default. The problem with this theory is in what mediated that metabolic advantage, which was thermodynamics. The thermic effect of protein which is fairly well known now, facilitated that metabolic advantage cpompared to a high carb with much of it coming from refined carbs aka the SAD diet. Getting back to the ketogenic diet and the myth that seems to have been perpetuated that it will burn fat as an energy source and somehow will allow for more weight loss is flawed simply because of the law of thermodynamics. The ketogenic diet is generally very low in carbs and high in fat and when compared to a diet that is equally as high in protein, that advantage I spoke of disappears and your right, in ward studies there clearly shows no advantage. But if you replace some of the calories coming from fat, which has no thermic effect to speak of and replace them with more carbs, like fiberous veg TEF can be increased simply because of the differences in TEF between fat and vegetables. Basically any higher protein diet will regardless of carb content shows that the ketogenic diet is not necessary if one is thinking it does somehow facilitate more weight loss compared to any other diet. imo
Another issues you see in a lot of studies comparing LC and HC diets is they're assumption about what constitutes low carb. So various studies use LC to label very different carb intake levels.
Well, my own n=1 suggests there is no metabolic advantage but I've just been keeping an open mind about it. Personally I don't aim for a ketogenic diet, just eliminate refined carbs, generally I aim for 50 - 70g, although I've done periods of consistently < 50g a day.
I've read about the thermogenic effect of protein although it's supposed to be fairly small, of course, it's still a metabolic advantage.0 -
Geez, this post is still going on:noway:0
-
Geez, this post is still going on:noway:
Better than starting a new one.0 -
Me and one my friend were talkin about how she recently(over the summer) lost 30 lbs W/O EXERCISING! When she told me that my mouth dropped. Then this guy who put on a great deal of muscle in the past 1-2 years told me that if you cut out all the carbs in your diet you'd loose a great amount of weight because all the fat on your body is carbs. I'm not very bright in the food and nutrition departmment so was he right? If I stop eating things like white rice, bread, pasta, etc I loose a bunch of weight.:huh:
yep.working for me!!!!0 -
Yes, you can totally survive without any grain products, any rice, any cereals AT ALL.
To deny that is to deny over a million years of human evolution.
Is it hard? Maybe.
Most of us "low carbers" actually eat more vegetables than grain eaters. We get more nutrients for the same amount of calories.
Calorie for calorie, vegetables tend to have far more fiber and other nutrients, period.
Anything a grain can do, vegetables can do better, with a heckuva lot less carbs.
If you want an EASY way to cut calories, cut all grains, cereals, sugars, rice, faux grains like qinoa, and eat more vegetables.
You will be shocked at just how high the mountain of green, orange, and red can get on your plate with lush plants, for next to no calories. And your body will be just fine.
People seriously need to stop thinking you will go ketogenic just because you do not eat grain. Grains are not, nor have they ever been an "essential nutrient". In fact carbs have not, nor have they ever been, an "essential nutrient" in medicine.0 -
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
Huge difference between carrots which are natural, and highly processed pasta, whole grains or otherwise, and breads, that would not exist without extensive processing. In fact, you cannot even really eat those foods without destroying and rebuilding them first. You can however, eat a carrot or banana just the way you find it.
Real food does not come with calorie labels, and with the exception of a few tubers, most real food is considered low carb, and people think that makes it somehow lacking, so they have to supplement it with food that would not existing without some form of mechanical processing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions