CARBS ARE GOOD!
Options
Replies
-
Peer review is not all it is cracked up to be. And just because something is not peer reviewed doesn't mean that it is crap research. I doubt that Dr. Johnson's research will ultimately be non-peer reviewed since it was done under a National Institutes of Health grant. I never said that lower-carb (ultra low carb diets are NOT a healthy way to lose weight) dieting is for everyone---but the biochemistry of obesity often responds best to lower-carb eating because of its ability to lower insulin levels. High insulin levels are very deleterious to health---in addition to leading to insulin resistance and Type II diabetes. Many obese individuals report that they have difficulty controlling their appetites on a carb-rich diet and that they have much better appetite control on a carb-restricted diet.
Low carb approach is a couple centuries and the success of it is well documented. This issue comes from government funding of "research" that only support predetermined outcomes. The government prefers a one-size-fits-all answer for everything.
There is not single answer to what works.
I have experimented with my own carb intake lately and even whole grain carbs trigger cravings. But cheese and nuts never do.
A newly formed nutrition science group has been formed to use honest scientific method to evaluate nutrition approaches.
http://nusi.org/
[/quote]
Would that be the group started by Gary Taubes the jounalist?? lol Surely you jest?? And are we now into conspiracy theories?? Wait let me put on my tin foil hat!! This in where you low carb extemist lose most people. If low carb works for you, great. it has it's benefits. It has it's limitations. It is not the great new religion. It is just a tool. Effective for some. Not for others.
[/quote]
Why the hostility? Neither of us said that lower-carb eating is the answer for everyone---but it is the answer for some (including me).0 -
Peer review is not all it is cracked up to be. And just because something is not peer reviewed doesn't mean that it is crap research. I doubt that Dr. Johnson's research will ultimately be non-peer reviewed since it was done under a National Institutes of Health grant. I never said that lower-carb (ultra low carb diets are NOT a healthy way to lose weight) dieting is for everyone---but the biochemistry of obesity often responds best to lower-carb eating because of its ability to lower insulin levels. High insulin levels are very deleterious to health---in addition to leading to insulin resistance and Type II diabetes. Many obese individuals report that they have difficulty controlling their appetites on a carb-rich diet and that they have much better appetite control on a carb-restricted diet.
Low carb approach is a couple centuries and the success of it is well documented. This issue comes from government funding of "research" that only support predetermined outcomes. The government prefers a one-size-fits-all answer for everything.
There is not single answer to what works.
I have experimented with my own carb intake lately and even whole grain carbs trigger cravings. But cheese and nuts never do.
A newly formed nutrition science group has been formed to use honest scientific method to evaluate nutrition approaches.
http://nusi.org/
Would that be the group started by Gary Taubes the jounalist?? lol Surely you jest?? And are we now into conspiracy theories?? Wait let me put on my tin foil hat!! This in where you low carb extemist lose most people. If low carb works for you, great. it has it's benefits. It has it's limitations. It is not the great new religion. It is just a tool. Effective for some. Not for others.
[/quote]
Why the hostility? Neither of us said that lower-carb eating is the answer for everyone---but it is the answer for some (including me).
[/quote]
No hostily. Just truth!0 -
yes they are0
-
My diet is actually very carb heavy because of how much I work at dance... most of my diet is carbs then protein then low fat.
Keeps me energized!!0 -
Thats right i said it.
1.) Carbs are fuel, treat them as such and they will present no problem for you
2.) no carb nazis get sick from not having carbs...proof enough?
3.) i do realize there are bad carbs. if you need someone to tell you wheat bread is better than bleached white bread or to put down the cookie, then you have bigger problems.
Yet another person assuming that what works for them works for everyone. I lost over 100 pounds by simply cutting back portions and eating a balanced diet. Until that stopped working. I plateaued for years, even though I was working out and still eating properly. Then, I started gaining...while biking over 100 miles a week, lifting weights, hiking, running, and eating a balanced healthy diet. I knew something was wrong and I had to go to three different doctors before they found it. I have Hashimoto's. The doctor put me on medication and cut my carbs drastically. I eat between 20 and 30 grams of net carbs a day. Occasionally I go as high as 50. Every few months, I eat more carbs for a week then drop back into the very low carb zone. Due to the Hashimotos, my body does not handle carbs well. I fully agree that they are fuel and the body's preferred source of fuel. But some people, like me, simply cannot eat them. My body just stores the damn things as fat. I would love to be able to eat fruit and grains, but its just better if I don't. I lost 11 of the 25 that I gained before I was diagnosed, but even now, on medication, its difficult to lose and I mostly maintain my weight. But at least I stopped gaining. But to set the record straight...I feel great, I'm not sick, I have plenty of energy and feel better than I have in quite a while. Some people, for medical or physical reason may just do better on low carb. I am one of those and I'll bet there are others on here with thyroid issues who do as well.0 -
mmapags,
You said: "No hostily. Just truth! "
What may be true for your body/metabolism is not necessarily true for everyone else's. I think you are guilty of judging others on the basis of your own prejudice. I have NEVER been able to reduce very successfully or permanently with calorie restriction and a high-carb diet makes me sluggish and sick (because of the common blood sugar/insulin problems that many obese women have). A lower-carb plan is the ONLY plan that has ever worked successfully and permanently for me---plus it has solved a number of other health problems as well. To date, over the last 6 months, I have lost 25 pounds and am never hungry (I was always "starving" on low-calorie plans). My high blood pressure is gone, my blood sugar/insulin is staying within normal limits and my cholesterol and triglycerides have gone down to normal levels as well. Why argue with success?0 -
mmapags,
You said: "No hostily. Just truth! "
What may be true for your body/metabolism is not necessarily true for everyone else's. I think you are guilty of judging others on the basis of your own prejudice. I have NEVER been able to reduce very successfully or permanently with calorie restriction and a high-carb diet makes me sluggish and sick (because of the common blood sugar/insulin problems that many obese women have). A lower-carb plan is the ONLY plan that has ever worked successfully and permanently for me---plus it has solved a number of other health problems as well. To date, over the last 6 months, I have lost 25 pounds and am never hungry (I was always "starving" on low-calorie plans). My high blood pressure is gone, my blood sugar/insulin is staying within normal limits and my cholesterol and triglycerides have gone down to normal levels as well. Why argue with success?
That's what works well for you great. I am not against low carb as an approach. I am against people posting bogus claims that they can't back up with any credible source. That is what you did and then posted that Peer Reviewed studies aren't all they are cracked up to be without offering any credible alternative. That's BS, plain and simple.
Search Krieger's site Weightology, he is one of the most highly respected people in the nutrition field in the US today. He summarizes all the reseach and offers his own opinion. First there have been NO well structures studies with proper controls so the data is not very good that is available. Second, there is nothing that indicates low carb has any greater benefit than other forms of diet control.
Just to be clear, I have no bias except against people making claims that are not supported in any credible way and quite honestly that makes me quite angry.Throwing in the Taubes reference was just the icing on the cake. Even Mark Sisson who once was a quasi supporter of him has backed away. Very little credibility.
With your particular health situation, low carb can be an effective tool but it should not be your only tool. Dan laid out other step to repair a damaged metabolism. You should be looking at those also because, for most, a low carb diet is not sustainable permanently.0 -
[because, for most, a low carb diet is not sustainable permanently.
why not?0 -
I read these threads and I'm really touched at all the people trying to rescue us low carbers from ourselves...and then I feel kinda bad because trying to fix your diets never even crosses my mind...
Guess I've been a really bad MFP buddy.
Seriously folks, enjoy your carbs and pass me the steak and veg.0 -
[because, for most, a low carb diet is not sustainable permanently.
why not?
It's too restrictive for most and hard to comply with long term. If someone is willing to take that approach and commit to it longer term great. But the real question is why when there is no proven metabolic advantage. The following is exerpted from Krieger's paper:
1. The proposed metabolic advantage (MA) for low carb diets is a hypothesis, not a fact
2. There is inadequate data to support the MA hypothesis
3. There is inadequate data to reject the MA hypothesis
4. The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".
5. A definitive study examining 24-hour energy expenditure (using room calorimetry), comparing a ketogenic diet to a traditional diet (with matched protein intake) for subjects in an energy deficit, has not been performed. This is the only study that will adequately test the MA hypothesis in humans
6. Weight loss still requires an energy deficit. If a MA exists, it still cannot make up for an energy surplus or energy balance. To assert otherwise is to assert that energy can be created or destroyed out of thin air, or that human tissue can be created in the absence of any energy input.
Bottom line? As I've stated several times, I don't care if someone eats low carb. That's their preference. But don't claim a proven advantage. It doesn't exist as of this date. It might in the future, it might not. That is my issue with some of the posts in this thread. There is enough data both anecdotal and downstream data on long term compliance to indicate compliance is poor long term.
No proven metabolic advantage + restrictive and difficult to comply with = why? That's my reason for not doing. Others are free to do whatever they want.0 -
Thats right i said it.
1.) Carbs are fuel, treat them as such and they will present no problem for you
2.) no carb nazis get sick from not having carbs...proof enough?
3.) i do realize there are bad carbs. if you need someone to tell you wheat bread is better than bleached white bread or to put down the cookie, then you have bigger problems.
Yet another person assuming that what works for them works for everyone. I lost over 100 pounds by simply cutting back portions and eating a balanced diet. Until that stopped working. I plateaued for years, even though I was working out and still eating properly. Then, I started gaining...while biking over 100 miles a week, lifting weights, hiking, running, and eating a balanced healthy diet. I knew something was wrong and I had to go to three different doctors before they found it. I have Hashimoto's. The doctor put me on medication and cut my carbs drastically. I eat between 20 and 30 grams of net carbs a day. Occasionally I go as high as 50. Every few months, I eat more carbs for a week then drop back into the very low carb zone. Due to the Hashimotos, my body does not handle carbs well. I fully agree that they are fuel and the body's preferred source of fuel. But some people, like me, simply cannot eat them. My body just stores the damn things as fat. I would love to be able to eat fruit and grains, but its just better if I don't. I lost 11 of the 25 that I gained before I was diagnosed, but even now, on medication, its difficult to lose and I mostly maintain my weight. But at least I stopped gaining. But to set the record straight...I feel great, I'm not sick, I have plenty of energy and feel better than I have in quite a while. Some people, for medical or physical reason may just do better on low carb. I am one of those and I'll bet there are others on here with thyroid issues who do as well.
You are so right! I am another in that category of not being able to handle a lot of carbs.0 -
17 RCTs showing significantly more weight loss with low carb diets:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
But there are so many papers showing low carb diets being effective at treating disease that even doctors are catching on and it's why you see more and more people on these forums being prescribed a low carb diet for a whole host of medical conditions. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.0 -
why not?
No proven metabolic advantage + restrictive and difficult to comply with = why? That's my reason for not doing. Others are free to do whatever they want.
those are YOUR reason(s). I dont find it hard to comply with at all. As far as restrictive, I don't feel restricted by focusing more on protein and fat which results in low carb.0 -
I don't get why everyone feels the need to shyte all over things because it's not what works for them.
I will do what works for me thanks. I won't change what IS working for me just because someone on the internet says I should.0 -
mmapags,
You said: "No hostily. Just truth! "
What may be true for your body/metabolism is not necessarily true for everyone else's. I think you are guilty of judging others on the basis of your own prejudice. I have NEVER been able to reduce very successfully or permanently with calorie restriction and a high-carb diet makes me sluggish and sick (because of the common blood sugar/insulin problems that many obese women have). A lower-carb plan is the ONLY plan that has ever worked successfully and permanently for me---plus it has solved a number of other health problems as well. To date, over the last 6 months, I have lost 25 pounds and am never hungry (I was always "starving" on low-calorie plans). My high blood pressure is gone, my blood sugar/insulin is staying within normal limits and my cholesterol and triglycerides have gone down to normal levels as well. Why argue with success?
That's what works well for you great. I am not against low carb as an approach. I am against people posting bogus claims that they can't back up with any credible source. That is what you did and then posted that Peer Reviewed studies aren't all they are cracked up to be without offering any credible alternative. That's BS, plain and simple.
Search Krieger's site Weightology, he is one of the most highly respected people in the nutrition field in the US today. He summarizes all the reseach and offers his own opinion. First there have been NO well structures studies with proper controls so the data is not very good that is available. Second, there is nothing that indicates low carb has any greater benefit than other forms of diet control.
Just to be clear, I have no bias except against people making claims that are not supported in any credible way and quite honestly that makes me quite angry.Throwing in the Taubes reference was just the icing on the cake. Even Mark Sisson who once was a quasi supporter of him has backed away. Very little credibility.
With your particular health situation, low carb can be an effective tool but it should not be your only tool. Dan laid out other step to repair a damaged metabolism. You should be looking at those also because, for most, a low carb diet is not sustainable permanently.
I never raised Taubes in this conversation. There is a LOT of legitimate research that shows the benefits of a lower-carb diet. I'm not talking Atkins here. I agree that Atkins is NOT a healthy diet and not sustainable long term as it mostly excludes fruit. Fruit is a very important source of nutrients---particularly fresh fruit. But the diet that I am on, permits me to have several pieces of low-fructose fruit every day. I could stay on this diet forever---it is much healthier than a diet full of grain.
And I have just as much disdain for Krieger's analysis as you have for others'. A lower-carb diet (for me) repairs a lot that a high-carb diet did to me. I have had (high) blood sugar issues since I was a young child and all those (for me) excessive carbohydrates just made me fat and miserable and ultimately sick. I will stay on my current plan for the rest of my life.0 -
I get it... Some people can lose weight with carbs. I personally can not! If I eat two slices of bread in one day.... its a wash. I will not be down anything even if I work out and only eat 1200 calories.
I am/was prediabetic and my body can not handle it.
What I don't understand is why there is a pro carbs and anti carbs split here on MFP? WTF? Are we not all trying to get healthy and find what works for us as individuals?
If you can eat carbs fabulous! If you are like me and can not then I'm sorry because it stinks when you want some toast or just one F***ing cookie.0 -
[because, for most, a low carb diet is not sustainable permanently.
why not?
It's too restrictive for most and hard to comply with long term. If someone is willing to take that approach and commit to it longer term great. But the real question is why when there is no proven metabolic advantage. The following is exerpted from Krieger's paper:
1. The proposed metabolic advantage (MA) for low carb diets is a hypothesis, not a fact
2. There is inadequate data to support the MA hypothesis
3. There is inadequate data to reject the MA hypothesis
4. The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".
5. A definitive study examining 24-hour energy expenditure (using room calorimetry), comparing a ketogenic diet to a traditional diet (with matched protein intake) for subjects in an energy deficit, has not been performed. This is the only study that will adequately test the MA hypothesis in humans
6. Weight loss still requires an energy deficit. If a MA exists, it still cannot make up for an energy surplus or energy balance. To assert otherwise is to assert that energy can be created or destroyed out of thin air, or that human tissue can be created in the absence of any energy input.
Bottom line? As I've stated several times, I don't care if someone eats low carb. That's their preference. But don't claim a proven advantage. It doesn't exist as of this date. It might in the future, it might not. That is my issue with some of the posts in this thread. There is enough data both anecdotal and downstream data on long term compliance to indicate compliance is poor long term.
No proven metabolic advantage + restrictive and difficult to comply with = why? That's my reason for not doing. Others are free to do whatever they want.
That last statement is false. Why don't you take the word of those who have experimented on themselves and been successful with lower-carb eating? You cannot compare the results of experimentation on normal-weight subjects to those which show over and over that those subjects who have metabolic problems (and obesity and diabetes are just two of them) do better on the short and long term on a carbohydrate restricted diet.0 -
I also agree that carbs are good.
Runners need all the carbs they can get. Carbs fuel us as we run. Low carb intake will make for a lousy run.0 -
17 RCTs showing significantly more weight loss with low carb diets:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
But there are so many papers showing low carb diets being effective at treating disease that even doctors are catching on and it's why you see more and more people on these forums being prescribed a low carb diet for a whole host of medical conditions. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.
Yayyy! Thanks for your response--it is right on!0 -
why not?
No proven metabolic advantage + restrictive and difficult to comply with = why? That's my reason for not doing. Others are free to do whatever they want.
those are YOUR reason(s). I dont find it hard to comply with at all. As far as restrictive, I don't feel restricted by focusing more on protein and fat which results in low carb.
You are correct. Those are my reasons. You do not find it restrictive? Good for you. Many do and that is what makes doing it or not personal preference and not based on metabolic advantage.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions