How can carbs be bad when ppl have eaten them for thousands

grinch031

The main problem I have with the CICO model is that body fat is regulated, and when people overeat/undereat the body will compensate to maintain homeostasis. It seems that lowering carb intake can drop the body weight set point in most people to some extent without feeling overly hungry. However keeping carb intake high while dropping calories can lead excessive hunger.

Or the most more simple explanation, when people lower carbs then generally increase protein intake which is found to be the most satiating macro

Very nice answer. I saw a study earlier about exactly that subject. They were comparing people on 3 diets. A control group, a group of high protein low carbs and a group of high protein high carbs. Their findings were that both groups were losing weight way more efficiently than the control group, and there was no significant difference between the groups. Not for weight loss at least, the study indicates that if you are trying to go from 10% to 6% body fat, THEN you might want to start considering keeping carbs on the low side.

Carbs are not evil, people using carbs in fast food in the way that costs the least are the enemy. There is a multi billion industry out there trying to kill you slowly, and another 90 billion industry telling you it's fine as long as you diet every once in a while... Read a lot, eat real food (including carbs) and you will beat them all

Was this an ad lib study? We all know there is a metabolic advantage to eating high protein, so that doesn't really address anything new.

The problem I have with this "protein is satiating" argument is that nobody can seem to explain why protein is satiating. And second, the body is very good at compensating to regulate body weight and the short term satiating nature of protein should have little to do with that. Plus many low-carb dieters do not eat high amounts of protein but high amounts of fat, the very food that most scientists say people are overeating.

If anything, the only value I see in protein being satiating is that it keeps people from eating too much at a given meal so they don't end up with an excessive insulin response. Also protein can counter the insulin response with its glucagon response. Not that this would be a problem in lean individuals, but it sure would be in people who have carb intolerance.

10KEyes

Carbs aren't bad. They are essential.

Actually they are NOT essential. There are essential amino acids and essential fatty acids, but no such thing as essential carbs.

mmapags

Only if you want your head filled with lots of nonsense

Excess calories make you fat regardless of it's carbs, fats or pro.

I agree that excess calories make you fat.
But regardless of carbs? (I prefer to speak of grain products as I am not against carbs)

What do you base your claims on? Can you provide facts? I'd be interested.

You can manually overfeed and get fat with any macro-nutrient ratio. However I haven't seen much evidence that people on low-carb diets will generally gain much weight while eating ad lib. Why because low-carb diets lead to better control of hunger and eating behavior.

And I would ask the same of you that you asked of Acg67. I mean no challenge or disrespect in that. The above statement, or some version of it, I've seen you repeat as your belief. I ask with a completely open mind, do you have any studies that support this belief? It may be true for all I know. I'd be interested in learning if it is or isn't.

Which belief as I stated 3 of them in that paragraph?

"You can manually overfeed and get fat with any macro-nutrient ratio."

This one is proven fact in my opinion.

" I haven't seen much evidence that people on low-carb diets will generally gain much weight while eating ad lib. Why because low-carb diets lead to better control of hunger and eating behavior."

These are the statement that I'd be interested in seeing if they can be backed up by any valid research. Thanks for clarifying.

Well I can't find evidence that people on low-carb diets gain much weight with ad lib eating, but I don't know that its even been tested.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/276.full#R27

Several studies confirm that there is a spontaneous reduction in caloric intake when carbohydrate intake only is restricted to 5–10% of caloric intake (24). In the most controlled study to date, an LCD led to hunger levels similar to those of a low-fat diet, even though the daily caloric intake with the LCD was 1000 kcal lower (13). Another study used the Eating Inventory, a validated questionnaire assessing hunger and cognitive restraint, and found that hunger was reduced by 50% when measured after 1 wk of an LCD (25). Another study examining a 20-g carbohydrate diet found that fasting serum leptin was reduced by 50% and fasting serum neuropeptide Y was reduced by 15% (26). It may also be that the mere lowering of serum insulin concentrations, as is seen with LCDs, may lead to a reduction in appetite. In support of this idea, several studies have found that insulin increases food intake, that foods with high insulin responses are less satiating, and that suppression of insulin with octreotide leads to weight loss (27-29).

Later on I will read both your link and Acg67s. One thing that jusmped out at me is this statement in the quote you posted;

"It may also be that the mere lowering of serum insulin concentrations, as is seen with LCDs, may lead to a reduction in appetite. In support of this idea, several studies have found that insulin increases food intake, that foods with high insulin responses are less satiating, and that suppression of insulin with octreotide leads to weight loss (27-29). "

I read a serries this weekend on insulin by James Krieger the oft published and well respected nutrition expert, that was recommeded by another member here. It was pretty interesting and I would highly recommend it. One of the facts that he details is that protein causes significant insulin spikes in addition to carbs. This would seem contradictory to the above statement as I think there is general agreement that protien has a high satiety factor. Should you be interested , you can find it here:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

75Juniper

bump

Masterdo

The main problem I have with the CICO model is that body fat is regulated, and when people overeat/undereat the body will compensate to maintain homeostasis. It seems that lowering carb intake can drop the body weight set point in most people to some extent without feeling overly hungry. However keeping carb intake high while dropping calories can lead excessive hunger.

Or the most more simple explanation, when people lower carbs then generally increase protein intake which is found to be the most satiating macro

Very nice answer. I saw a study earlier about exactly that subject. They were comparing people on 3 diets. A control group, a group of high protein low carbs and a group of high protein high carbs. Their findings were that both groups were losing weight way more efficiently than the control group, and there was no significant difference between the groups. Not for weight loss at least, the study indicates that if you are trying to go from 10% to 6% body fat, THEN you might want to start considering keeping carbs on the low side.

Carbs are not evil, people using carbs in fast food in the way that costs the least are the enemy. There is a multi billion industry out there trying to kill you slowly, and another 90 billion industry telling you it's fine as long as you diet every once in a while... Read a lot, eat real food (including carbs) and you will beat them all

Was this an ad lib study? We all know there is a metabolic advantage to eating high protein, so that doesn't really address anything new.

The problem I have with this "protein is satiating" argument is that nobody can seem to explain why protein is satiating. And second, the body is very good at compensating to regulate body weight and the short term satiating nature of protein should have little to do with that. Plus many low-carb dieters do not eat high amounts of protein but high amounts of fat, the very food that most scientists say people are overeating.

If anything, the only value I see in protein being satiating is that it keeps people from eating too much at a given meal so they don't end up with an excessive insulin response. Also protein can counter the insulin response with its glucagon response. Not that this would be a problem in lean individuals, but it sure would be in people who have carb intolerance.

I am at school right now, searching Google Scholar seems to be something you cannot easily reproduce... When I get home I'll check for the exact study and link it. Or if I feel like procrastinating a bit longer here, I'll search my post history, I know I linked it before.

But the point of the study was not about satiety. It was about controling protein and seeing if under those conditions the intake of carbs influenced the weight loss pace or efficiency. I remember the researchers explicitely stating in their conclusions that the results were so clear that it was actually ground to question if the low carbs diet success people experience was largely due to the increase in protein intake rather than decrease in carbs.

mmapags

If anything, the only value I see in protein being satiating is that it keeps people from eating too much at a given meal so they don't end up with an excessive insulin response. Also protein can counter the insulin response with its glucagon response. Not that this would be a problem in lean individuals, but it sure would be in people who have carb intolerance.

Krieger also addresses this. I would highly recommed the articles.

grinch031

Only if you want your head filled with lots of nonsense

Excess calories make you fat regardless of it's carbs, fats or pro.

I agree that excess calories make you fat.
But regardless of carbs? (I prefer to speak of grain products as I am not against carbs)

What do you base your claims on? Can you provide facts? I'd be interested.

You can manually overfeed and get fat with any macro-nutrient ratio. However I haven't seen much evidence that people on low-carb diets will generally gain much weight while eating ad lib. Why because low-carb diets lead to better control of hunger and eating behavior.

And I would ask the same of you that you asked of Acg67. I mean no challenge or disrespect in that. The above statement, or some version of it, I've seen you repeat as your belief. I ask with a completely open mind, do you have any studies that support this belief? It may be true for all I know. I'd be interested in learning if it is or isn't.

Which belief as I stated 3 of them in that paragraph?

"You can manually overfeed and get fat with any macro-nutrient ratio."

This one is proven fact in my opinion.

" I haven't seen much evidence that people on low-carb diets will generally gain much weight while eating ad lib. Why because low-carb diets lead to better control of hunger and eating behavior."

These are the statement that I'd be interested in seeing if they can be backed up by any valid research. Thanks for clarifying.

Well I can't find evidence that people on low-carb diets gain much weight with ad lib eating, but I don't know that its even been tested.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/276.full#R27

Several studies confirm that there is a spontaneous reduction in caloric intake when carbohydrate intake only is restricted to 5–10% of caloric intake (24). In the most controlled study to date, an LCD led to hunger levels similar to those of a low-fat diet, even though the daily caloric intake with the LCD was 1000 kcal lower (13). Another study used the Eating Inventory, a validated questionnaire assessing hunger and cognitive restraint, and found that hunger was reduced by 50% when measured after 1 wk of an LCD (25). Another study examining a 20-g carbohydrate diet found that fasting serum leptin was reduced by 50% and fasting serum neuropeptide Y was reduced by 15% (26). It may also be that the mere lowering of serum insulin concentrations, as is seen with LCDs, may lead to a reduction in appetite. In support of this idea, several studies have found that insulin increases food intake, that foods with high insulin responses are less satiating, and that suppression of insulin with octreotide leads to weight loss (27-29).

Later on I will read both your link and Acg67s. One thing that jusmped out at me is this statement in the quote you posted;

"It may also be that the mere lowering of serum insulin concentrations, as is seen with LCDs, may lead to a reduction in appetite. In support of this idea, several studies have found that insulin increases food intake, that foods with high insulin responses are less satiating, and that suppression of insulin with octreotide leads to weight loss (27-29). "

I read a serries this weekend on insulin by James Krieger the oft published and well respected nutrition expert, that was recommeded by another member here. It was pretty interesting and I would highly recommend it. One of the facts that he details is that protein causes significant insulin spikes in addition to carbs. This would seem contradictory to the above statement as I think there is general agreement that protien has a high satiety factor. Should you be interested , you can find it here:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

People eat probably 3-4 times as much carbs as they do protein. Hyperinsulinaemic individuals are known to have excessive hunger despite having an abundance of the appetite suppressing hormone insulin secreted. Krieger tries to take a very complex system and over-simplify it. And if you look around the web, many are not convinced by his article.

From all the sources I've read, I've come to the conclusion that the carb hypothesis hasn't been properly tested. Although Taubes and some others are working on an initiative to get some real studies in place to truly put it to the test.

grinch031

The main problem I have with the CICO model is that body fat is regulated, and when people overeat/undereat the body will compensate to maintain homeostasis. It seems that lowering carb intake can drop the body weight set point in most people to some extent without feeling overly hungry. However keeping carb intake high while dropping calories can lead excessive hunger.

Or the most more simple explanation, when people lower carbs then generally increase protein intake which is found to be the most satiating macro

Very nice answer. I saw a study earlier about exactly that subject. They were comparing people on 3 diets. A control group, a group of high protein low carbs and a group of high protein high carbs. Their findings were that both groups were losing weight way more efficiently than the control group, and there was no significant difference between the groups. Not for weight loss at least, the study indicates that if you are trying to go from 10% to 6% body fat, THEN you might want to start considering keeping carbs on the low side.

Carbs are not evil, people using carbs in fast food in the way that costs the least are the enemy. There is a multi billion industry out there trying to kill you slowly, and another 90 billion industry telling you it's fine as long as you diet every once in a while... Read a lot, eat real food (including carbs) and you will beat them all

Was this an ad lib study? We all know there is a metabolic advantage to eating high protein, so that doesn't really address anything new.

The problem I have with this "protein is satiating" argument is that nobody can seem to explain why protein is satiating. And second, the body is very good at compensating to regulate body weight and the short term satiating nature of protein should have little to do with that. Plus many low-carb dieters do not eat high amounts of protein but high amounts of fat, the very food that most scientists say people are overeating.

If anything, the only value I see in protein being satiating is that it keeps people from eating too much at a given meal so they don't end up with an excessive insulin response. Also protein can counter the insulin response with its glucagon response. Not that this would be a problem in lean individuals, but it sure would be in people who have carb intolerance.

I am at school right now, searching Google Scholar seems to be something you cannot easily reproduce... When I get home I'll check for the exact study and link it. Or if I feel like procrastinating a bit longer here, I'll search my post history, I know I linked it before.

But the point of the study was not about satiety. It was about controling protein and seeing if under those conditions the intake of carbs influenced the weight loss pace or efficiency. I remember the researchers explicitely stating in their conclusions that the results were so clear that it was actually ground to question if the low carbs diet success people experience was largely due to the increase in protein intake rather than decrease in carbs.

Yeah but take a look at this:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285&cpage=1#comment-16946

As you can see in the chart, while increased protein reduced appetite, the combination of high protein and no carbohydrate reduced appetite even further. This means that a low-carbohydrate diet can provide an advantage in regards to reducing appetite that is independent of the protein intake. Another study found similar results; in fact, that study found a spontaneous reduction in calorie intake of 294 calories per day over a high protein, moderate carbohydrate diet. Thus, while low carbohydrate diets don’t provide a “metabolic advantage” that is independent of protein intake, they do provide an “appetite advantage” that is independent of protein intake. This appetite advantage is likely due to ketosis; one study showed that injection of ketones into the brain of rats caused a reduction in food intake.

Sapporo

Carbs aren't bad. They are essential.

Actually they are NOT essential. There are essential amino acids and essential fatty acids, but no such thing as essential carbs.

I would say they are essential because when some psycho so called nutritionist put me on a high protein no carb diet I lost my balance, my short term memory, and I was so stupid. Seriously, I needed carbs. I was allowed one salad a day, that was my carbs, with an oil based dressing so that was my added fat. The rest of the day was egg whites, protein drinks, and meats.
I don't care how much weight I lost doing that, I need my brain to work to complete school and to do my current job effectively.

AeolianHarp

I don't overeat because I have psychological problems, I overeat when I make the choice to start increasing carb intake.

Proof?

grinch031

If anything, the only value I see in protein being satiating is that it keeps people from eating too much at a given meal so they don't end up with an excessive insulin response. Also protein can counter the insulin response with its glucagon response. Not that this would be a problem in lean individuals, but it sure would be in people who have carb intolerance.

Krieger also addresses this. I would highly recommed the articles.

Another good source is Stephan Guyenet's Whole Health Source.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/

I don't trust everything this guy says either, but I think he talks about some important things like the brain's role. He thinks that processed foods are bad, but not because of insulin (he's very skeptical of insulin being bad), but because of food reward in the brain.

Masterdo

Yeah but take a look at this:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=285&cpage=1#comment-16946

As you can see in the chart, while increased protein reduced appetite, the combination of high protein and no carbohydrate reduced appetite even further. This means that a low-carbohydrate diet can provide an advantage in regards to reducing appetite that is independent of the protein intake. Another study found similar results; in fact, that study found a spontaneous reduction in calorie intake of 294 calories per day over a high protein, moderate carbohydrate diet. Thus, while low carbohydrate diets don’t provide a “metabolic advantage” that is independent of protein intake, they do provide an “appetite advantage” that is independent of protein intake. This appetite advantage is likely due to ketosis; one study showed that injection of ketones into the brain of rats caused a reduction in food intake.

Interesting. The two studies just have different goals. If the goal is to reduce the appetite to make sure that without explicitly counting calories, you end up eating less, reducing carbs might be the thing you need. In a situation where you count though, and want to meet the caloric goal (not arrive under or over it, but really meet it) while inducing the strongest metabolic increase, then studies showing that the variation in carbs are not significant are the ones that are relevant. I guess it's just that since I really don't see counting as a chore at all and feel perfectly fine doing it everyday forever, I was more interested in the type of study I mentioned.

Thanks for sharing!

megmay2591

It's just the newest thing to demonize, just like fats before it

Anal leakage potato chips anybody?