The enemy in weight loss isn’t carbs it’s your lack of k

mrd232

I believe that the generic dietary advice that carbs are the "enemy" is extremely wrong-headed. I'd be interested to hear though what carb intake percentage you would classify as "dangerous" metalpalace and WHY it is dangerous.

I have had success by cutting carbs to as low as 25% total dietary intake for up to 4 weeks for loss of bodyfat, but at that % I wouldn't want to go much longer than 4 weeks. Becomes very difficult to exercise at a high level of intensity. Your body just doesn't have the glycogen stores to get the job done.

I agree that 55% to 65% is what most people should aim for, focusing on complex carbs with a low glycemic load. I keep reading about people who are "carb intolerant" and need to consume a much lower %. I don't know if there is any truth to that. Could be, but I wonder if the real problem is carbs or possibly something else.

Mike

The American college of sports medicine recommends greater than 55% of total daily calories to be carbohydrates. The american council on exercise says 55% to 65% percent. Those two sources are enough for me because they are not regulated by the government. These two entities are comprised of various extremely qualified doctors, researches and scientists interested in improving the quality of life; unfettered by politics. Inherently that earns them browny points from me

I don't know what the upper daily recommended allowance is before you reach levels of toxicity but I am sure it's pretty high. Before you get to that point you would just be swapping out other important nutrients for more carbs which can be dangerous in it's own right.

Someone else in this thread said everything in moderation... GREAT advice.

The 55% to 65% is an expression of optimal amounts with upper and lower limits in addition to that. It's used as a guide, a ball park figure. It doesnt mean that if you do not consume that much you will come down with a disease linked to a nutrient deficiency. Symptoms may be subtle and develop over a long period of time.

You can bring your carb intake downto 25%. Body builders for competition will go even lower than that and supplement to make up for the severe nutrient deficiencies. A supplement isnt as valuble as real food so in essence they are slowly killing themselves for 4 weeks - 8 weeks until the compeition is over and then they go back on a normal eating schedule. Generally speaking you can come down as you did for 4 weeks and be fine but during that four weeks you are slowly killing yourself so you have no choice but to eventually eat normally again or you will pay for it. Body builders do it all the time, that's why I'm not a body builder..LoL

I probably would eat 50% of my content in carbohydrate if I was a triathlete or serious runner.

But I'm not nor do I intend to be one. Nor does the majority of the population. Their energy demands are significantly lower. The majority of people don't need to worry about fueling with glucose gel in the middle of a marathon. I doubt the majority of people need to worry about depleting their glycogen entirely unless they're severly curbing sugar intake. We eat quite enough of it in a typical American diet. If they up their activity level significantly, they can certainly up their carb intake as well as overall caloric intake. I think we may overrate our carb (kindling in the fire) needs more than that of dietary fat (slow burn fuel). We're not carb intolerant, no, we just overuse them via overrating our energy demands.

I used to be a running addict and did just this. I wasn't healthier nor did I have a better BF% than I do at eating at a lower level (typ. 20% carb) and utilizing namely heavy lifting and low to moderate cardio (biking, hiking). Come to think of it, as a runner, I was fairly squishy looking. If I feel like performing HIIT in a week, I'll up my carbohydrate by 5-10% to adjust, if needed. 25% isn't a huge cut nor in most cases will it trigger ketosis. <50g per day may trigger ketosis, but this can also be used as therapy for T2 diabetes, epilepsy, and ADHD/ADD. Ketoacidosis is what we want to avoid.

I don't look to serious athletes or athletic councils for my advice. Why is this? Because I don't believe that portion of the population should be used as a picture of health and wellness. The majority of the population will NEVER work out at the level of a serious athlete nor should they without proper training. I don't think the same of most bodybuilders either as they tend to lead some fairly extreme nutritional controls and use supplementation (creating loading, for one) I simply do not agree with. Outside of athletic councils, you'll see a growing number of physicians advising a lower carb diet...typically in the name of controlling insulin response in our growing Baby Boomer population with growing middles. They're not worried about performance in an HIIT session. They're concerned with improving their health stats or overcoming diabetes. I'd highly doubt that 50% carb diet is "just the ticket" to reduce their fat stores. Quite the contrary, actually.

I agree highly with consuming adequate levels of vegetables in the diet. Especially dark, leafy greens. Also a small amount of berries. These are key for many vital nutrients and antioxidants. I don't believe in consuming grains in the name of avoiding nutritional deficiency. From personal experience of a grain heavy diet, I experienced more frequent anemia and joint inflammation. I know others deal with the same. I do not deal with gluten well. That is me. It does not equate to some lack of fiber or the inability to have a properly functioning digestive system.

I was going to make the same argument but you made it much more eloquently than I would have. I noticed that all of the original poster's sources came from athletic or sports book/articles etc. While everyone should work out regularly (unless of course they have a condition that makes it unsafe) we are not all Michael Phelps and over 50% of carbs seems excessive. Now I like grains so I'm not going to stop eating them but I agree more with the side of eating like a caveman.

I also feel the need to address that our longer lives don't have much to do with our diet but with science and engineering. Despite our terrible eating habits we still live much longer than our ancestors did. We now have discovered medicines that heal our illness, we have houses that shield us from nature's elements and governments that protect us from predators.

Great points made about the short life span of the cave people. They had many, many reasons for their health problems. Today we do live much longer not because of our diets or activity levels, but because of medicine. We have mastered "dragging out our lives" via medical procedures and drugs while diminishing the quality of living via a slow degenerating respiration capacity and over all functional capacity. It's like we can make life drag on seemingly forever and we as a people are ok with that. I personally don't advocate merely living, I advocate a higher more functional quality of living. Some 80% of people do not die peacefully in their sleep. Dying peacefully in ones sleep is the minority now while living longer is the majority. In my opinion our priorities are azz backwards. I don't except to appeal to people ok with living longer because of advances in medicine and medical procedures (unless you are physically unable to eat reasonable and stay physically active).

Now to your other point... That 55% to 65% carb figure is based on a sedentary to highly physical active lifestyle. So to put it in your terms if you are a michael phelps then consuming towards the 65% end of the spectrum is ideal for optimum health. If you are a lazy sedentary individual, or physically unable to move, then 55% is ideal for optimum health. Less than 50% is not ideal for optimum health including the physically inactive. By the way now that I have seen the caveman paradigm there really isnt much difference in terms of macro nutrient proportions. They largely focus more on fruits verses grains. I just wouldn't recommend swapping out grains for fruits to someone who may have overly sensitive receptor cells to insulin secretion.

Which recommendation are you quoting? Because in all my reading, I'm not coming across the "high" carb recs in most paleo or primal eating. Most are tied to lower carb experts and medical doctors who recommend lower carb, higher fat diets...Dr. Michael Eades, for one, author of Protein Power. Weston A. Price for another. Are you referring to a raw paleo (high fruit) diet?

Eades on Paleo -> http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/

Sisson's Carb Diagram -> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/press/the-primal-blueprint-diagrams/

Published Paleo resources -> http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/

[Loren] Cordain (Paleo) certainly does not recommend anywhere near 50% carbohydrate intake daily. Mark Sisson's recommendations vary highly on athletic needs / performance, but generally a lower carb intake of 50-150g is recommended. High fruit consumption is not recommended as a means of "making up for" the lack of grain, rather a lower carb diet is recommended to control our body's insulin response. Even more important, controlling sugar intake (even in the form of fruit intake) is stressed.

Paleo dieters are typically in the lower end of the carb spectrum. Some carb load on weekends similar to weightlifters but generally remain in the lower end of the spectrum.

No offense here, but I'd check my sources before posting that info. Even Barry Sears of the Zone diet, popularized by the Crossfit community doesn't recommend 50% carbohydrate intake, but rather a 40% intake.

And a 40% intake is considered dangerous for "health"? I find that highly questionable to be honest.

July24Lioness

Great points made about the short life span of the cave people. They had many, many reasons for their health problems. Today we do live much longer not because of our diets or activity levels, but because of medicine. We have mastered "dragging out our lives" via medical procedures and drugs while diminishing the quality of living via a slow degenerating respiration capacity and over all functional capacity. It's like we can make life drag on seemingly forever and we as a people are ok with that. I personally don't advocate merely living, I advocate a higher more functional quality of living. Some 80% of people do not die peacefully in their sleep. Dying peacefully in ones sleep is the minority now while living longer is the majority. In my opinion our priorities are azz backwards. I don't except to appeal to people ok with living longer because of advances in medicine and medical procedures (unless you are physically unable to eat reasonable and stay physically active).

Now to your other point... That 55% to 65% carb figure is based on a sedentary to highly physical active lifestyle. So to put it in your terms if you are a michael phelps then consuming towards the 65% end of the spectrum is ideal for optimum health. If you are a lazy sedentary individual, or physically unable to move, then 55% is ideal for optimum health. Less than 50% is not ideal for optimum health including the physically inactive. By the way now that I have seen the caveman paradigm there really isnt much difference in terms of macro nutrient proportions. They largely focus more on fruits verses grains. I just wouldn't recommend swapping out grains for fruits to someone who may have overly sensitive receptor cells to insulin secretion.

Which recommendation are you quoting? Because in all my reading, I'm not coming across the "high" carb recs in most paleo or primal eating. Most are tied to lower carb experts and medical doctors who recommend lower carb, higher fat diets...Dr. Michael Eades, for one, author of Protein Power. Weston A. Price for another. Are you referring to a raw paleo (high fruit) diet?

Eades on Paleo -> http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/

Sisson's Carb Diagram -> http://www.marksdailyapple.com/press/the-primal-blueprint-diagrams/

Published Paleo resources -> http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/

[Loren] Cordain (Paleo) certainly does not recommend anywhere near 50% carbohydrate intake daily. Mark Sisson's recommendations vary highly on athletic needs / performance, but generally a lower carb intake of 50-150g is recommended. High fruit consumption is not recommended as a means of "making up for" the lack of grain, rather a lower carb diet is recommended to control our body's insulin response. Even more important, controlling sugar intake (even in the form of fruit intake) is stressed.

Paleo dieters are typically in the lower end of the carb spectrum. Some carb load on weekends similar to weightlifters but generally remain in the lower end of the spectrum.

No offense here, but I'd check my sources before posting that info. Even Barry Sears of the Zone diet, popularized by the Crossfit community doesn't recommend 50% carbohydrate intake, but rather a 40% intake.

And a 40% intake is considered dangerous for "health"? I find that highly questionable to be honest.

I am not either. I have read the Neanderthin Plan(Audette, Gilchrist, Eades), Paleo (Cordain) and I am presently reading The Primal Blue Print (Sisson).

My avatar is representative of the PBP plan as I saved it from Mark's Daily Apple site.

I have tried to explain to MetalPalace that we don't require that level of carbs and definitely don't need that much sugar (even though it is natural) to function properly.

I know a lot of people that follow a zero carb or low / controlled carb plan (any plan that is under 150 grams of carbs per day is considered to be a controlled carb plan) ((mrd232, I know you know this already)) and they are healthier than those that eat a lower calorie / lower fat plan or the typical SAD.

I also wanted to add that I must be getting ready to die any moment now - as my carb intake is only between 5 and 12% of my daily intake. The mainstay of my eating plan is Fat and then protein. I have more energy now, feel like exercising, no more brain fog, sleep better and the most important of all, I am living pain and medication free. Losing weight is just an added bonus.

hasiangirl

good god people......so everyone has differently beliefs and everyone eats differently if it isnt going directly into your body why do u care so much,,,,,,,,if no one is ASKING YOU for advice why do u care so much?....if someone has a diffferent belief let them have one......quit arguing for pages upon pages of who's right and who's wrong, because by the end of the day after all the fuss about who's right and who's wrong neither one of u are really going to budge the other one into believing otherwise...... so how about u both just nicely state what u believe to be true and then let others choose for themselves as to what they believe is true......and LIONESS whyyyyyy do u always assume something is meant to u and about u or if someone is aggressive that it's to u......first page within 4 posts u thought it was all about it.....i read the post and knew right away Jmax was talking to Tom....i;m going to say this in the nicest way possible ............the world does not revolve around u......lol oi vey reading this thread got me all annoyed and now im ranting lmao *leaves thread*

JoyousMaximus

Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.

hasiangirl

Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.

ol i guess after reading for pages of arguing for 15 mins (and thats skimming somewhat) it gets old :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: i'm better now.....lol
p.s. its that TOM also

Wecandothis

Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.

nah, you're a sweetheart.

hasiangirl

Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.

nah, you're a sweetheart.

:blushing: :blushing: lol now i feel bad i should go and revise that whole post lmao but its gotten quiet so maybe it worked :laugh:

Kityngirl

No Max. I think you did.

hasiangirl

oh i have such a bad joke lmao but i cant say it here lol

July24Lioness

First of all, the making of this post was directed at me when it was made because of another thread where I posted my opinion. Once again, you have no idea of what you are talking about.

I don't think the world revolves around me and we were having a debate, there was no arguing going on. Both sides presenting their own evidence.

I don't know where you get that we were arguing - a debate is very differently presented.

Once again, you misread the information presented.


P.S. - You are not the only one with PMS missy.

good god people......so everyone has differently beliefs and everyone eats differently if it isnt going directly into your body why do u care so much,,,,,,,,if no one is ASKING YOU for advice why do u care so much?....if someone has a diffferent belief let them have one......quit arguing for pages upon pages of who's right and who's wrong, because by the end of the day after all the fuss about who's right and who's wrong neither one of u are really going to budge the other one into believing otherwise...... so how about u both just nicely state what u believe to be true and then let others choose for themselves as to what they believe is true......and LIONESS whyyyyyy do u always assume something is meant to u and about u or if someone is aggressive that it's to u......first page within 4 posts u thought it was all about it.....i read the post and knew right away Jmax was talking to Tom....i;m going to say this in the nicest way possible ............the world does not revolve around u......lol oi vey reading this thread got me all annoyed and now im ranting lmao *leaves thread*

KatWood

Hasian- I don't think I've ever heard you rant.

nah, you're a sweetheart.

:blushing: :blushing: lol now i feel bad i should go and revise that whole post lmao but its gotten quiet so maybe it worked :laugh:

Nothing wrong with a good rant every once in a while. :happy:

mrd232

I was in the debate club in high school.

That could explain why I'm such an @$$hole in forums.

So please excuse my flagrant opinion.

July24Lioness

I was in the debate club in high school.

That could explain why I'm such an @$$hole in forums.

So please excuse my flagrant opinion.

I was also, LOL.

I am just a very honest and blunt person, in real life and on the internet forums.

Only certain people can appreciate a person's straight forwardness and bluntness. Most people want everything sugar-coated for them, both literally and figuratively and when it is not said in that flowery and fluffy manner, people get upset.

It sure won't change how I present myself on this site or any other.

foxyforce

I was in the debate club in high school.

That could explain why I'm such an @$$hole in forums.

So please excuse my flagrant opinion.

I was also, LOL.

I am just a very honest and blunt person, in real life and on the internet forums.

Only certain people can appreciate a person's straight forwardness and bluntness. Most people want everything sugar-coated for them, both literally and figuratively and when it is not said in that flowery and fluffy manner, people get upset.

It sure won't change how I present myself on this site or any other.

i think it is great for people to stick true to themselves, but that will always result in conflict, hands down, which is ok too

but, there is a difference between sugar coating something...and being appropriate.

it may be unrelated to the topic at hand, but

hasiangirl

lioness...i am not just referring to this page...i'm referring to every "debated" topic i've seen you in... and for some reason all the ones i've seen have eventually gotten shut down ....

July24Lioness

I was in the debate club in high school.

That could explain why I'm such an @$$hole in forums.

So please excuse my flagrant opinion.

I was also, LOL.

I am just a very honest and blunt person, in real life and on the internet forums.

Only certain people can appreciate a person's straight forwardness and bluntness. Most people want everything sugar-coated for them, both literally and figuratively and when it is not said in that flowery and fluffy manner, people get upset.

It sure won't change how I present myself on this site or any other.

i think it is great for people to stick true to themselves, but that will always result in conflict, hands down, which is ok too

but, there is a difference between sugar coating something...and being appropriate.

it may be unrelated to the topic at hand, but

I have said nothing inappropriate on this thread and neither has anyone else until this morning. I have stated my facts and MetalPalace has stated his. Others have stated theirs also some leaning toward my way of thinking and others leaning toward his way of thinking.............

July24Lioness

lioness...i am not just referring to this page...i'm referring to every "debated" topic i've seen you in... and for some reason all the ones i've seen have eventually gotten shut down ....

There are plenty of debated topics that I have been in and am presently in that are still ongoing.

What you don't see is the PM's with people coming to me telling me how I have opened their eyes to label reading and being more careful in what they are eating.

I have also had several apologies stating they were wrong to have bashed me in the past.

hasiangirl

lioness...i am not just referring to this page...i'm referring to every "debated" topic i've seen you in... and for some reason all the ones i've seen have eventually gotten shut down ....

There are plenty of debated topics that I have been in and am presently in that are still ongoing.

What you don't see is the PM's with people coming to me telling me how I have opened their eyes to label reading and being more careful in what they are eating.

I have also had several apologies stating they were wrong to have bashed me in the past.

like i told you in the PM 4 topics that you started to "debate" in have been closed down in a month and a half.. i think thats quite a bit....if there's no rudeness involved then would they be shut down?

and I refuse to be nice to someone who doesnt seem to be nice to others for the majority of time... like i said before there is blunt and then there is being rude....anyway if u would like to further talk about this i am not going to take up thread space discussing it...u may PM if u want any explanations or examples......

KatWood

That's fantastic. So we have heard both sides of this argument a million times. Unless someone has something NEW to add, how about we agree to disagree and get on with our lives? I mean a healthy debate is one thing but enough is enough. :grumble:

I think the one thing we can agree on is that time will tell. I look forward to the research that will come out 100 yrs from now to either support or refute different diets. Time and a large sample size is what is required to really highlight the facts, whatever they end up being.

Anyways, happy ALMOST - Friday everyone!:drinker: