Why Do YOU Eat Low Carb?

Dr. Oz made me do it.

Best answer.

I chose to cut out grains, starchy vegetables and limit my fruit intake by carbs instead of eating as much as I wanted as long as it fit in my calories. My goal was to get my carbs under 100 for the health benefits -- diabetes, heart disease and cancer are in my family. It was easy to eat under 100g just by cutting out the grains and starches but over the course of a few weeks I found that I responded even better to a lower level of carbs and now I try and keep my total carbs under 50g.

Since I'm responding so positively to eating this way I have to assume I have some degree of insulin resistance which makes sense because before on a diet ranging from 150g - 200g of carbs I would have occasional bouts of hypoglycemia if I went more than a couple hours without eating.

So the health benefits motivated me to start eating a low carb, high fat diet but the appetite control and the ability to get hungry, eat and be full is priceless. For the first time in years I don't have this low nagging hunger all the time that never gets satisfied. The best way I can describe it is when I was a kid playing outside and my mom calling me in to eat. I practically had to be forced inside but once I was sitting down I realized how hungry I was. I'd eat and everything tasted so good because I was hungry, I'd get full, stop eating and feel really satisfied for the rest of the night. That how I feel again and how imagine "normal" people feel as well.

I'd like to keep feeling like this so trust me when I say it's no hardship eating delicious food but having to sacrifice other delicious food to do it.

Seriously, please expand your knowledge beyond a few sources of a fringe 'guru' and try to achieve a broader and more stable view of the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate (check out the third paragraph on its 'rarity' and how it "is 100% NOT NECESSARY IN THE DIET")

If you keep reading the wiki page you linked to it also says:

Carbohydrates are not necessary building blocks of other molecules, and the body can obtain all its energy from protein and fats.[10][11]

sure, if you are doing intense workouts you are going to need the energy. But if you are not, you don't need all those carbs.

I HAVE NO IDEA IF THIS IS CORRECT, BUT FROM WHAT I HAVE READ ONLINE (EX. ATKINS.COM) IS THAT IF YOUR BODY DOESN'T HAVE CARBS TO USE AS FUEL IT WILL USE YOUR STORED FAT AS ITS FUEL RESOURCE. AND TO ME IT'S WORTH A TRY TO SEE IF I CAN DROP THE FIRST FEW POUNDS THIS WAY. I SERIOUSLY JUST SPENT ALL DAY YESTERDAY RESEARCHING THE ATKINS DIET AND TODAY IS MY FIRST DAY ON IT. I ONLY TOOK IN 20 G OF CARBS TODAY AND I FEEL LIKE I HAVE MORE ENERGY ALREADY! BUT AT SAME TIME I SIT BEHIND A DESK ALL DAY, SO MAYBE I DON'T NEED AS MUCH AS OTHER ACTIVE PEOPLE.

Why are you yelling?

& Of course atkins is going to advocate low-carb. That's what that diet is. Try research that's not biased.

^^LOL!
All caps = annoying!

Carbs in the form of fruits and vegetables are King.

Starchy carbs in the forms of bread, pasta, rice etc can be a problem. I eat Paleo but I'm not a fanatic about it. I feel so much better for it.

Because I have more energy when I keep my carbs at 40% or less of my daily intake. Excessive carbs make me feel sluggish. I did 40/30/30 as an endurance swimmer and I was perfectly fine. I also find I'm more hungry, especially if my carb intake is high in starch/grains. Fruit makes me hungry too, like really hungry.

pretty much this. also i notice i bloat easily when eating bread. like today for instance lol

Besides the fact that my body loves to store carbs around my middle, I have to say that when I eat processed foods, sugar, enriched flour, etc...it causes my ATTITUDE to plummet....my friends and loved ones always ask if I've eaten those foods when I become moody!!! If I'm really conscious about avoiding refined carbs, I laugh alot and become very happy and energetic. Don't know if it's a scientific truth or not....just the way my body handles it. Maybe I should start a new thread for those with attitude problems....it might be the refined carbs!! LOL

So, after reading through all of this, and the effect low carb diets have had on people, I think what is really happening is people are eliminating food sensitivities they have, and thus losing weight, no more migraines, bloating, upset stomach, better sleep, more energy, etc.,etc.,etc. All of the above are symptoms of food allergies (which I suffer from all of them, including Meniere Syndrome symptoms, among others). The most common food intolerance's: Wheat, gluten, white rice, potatoes, and various other grains. What do all of these foods have in common? Our ancestors didn't eat them.

So I'm not buying this 20g of carbs a day thing. We require carbs to function at 100%. All everyone is experiencing is the elimination of foods their bodies can digest. They've just cut out a whack load of other foods as well.

As for the "our biology is designed to store it when we come across it," I'm sorry, but you're full of crap. Our ancestors were NOT carnivores. They were omnivores, leaning more towards herbivores. How often do you see a group of chimps chasing down a gazelle and ripping it's carcass into itty bitty pieces and swallowing them? Granted, they don't eat a lot of grains, because they're not readily available. 90% of their diet comes from fruit and veggies.

As much as I advocate low carb, I understand that our lifestyles and our biology may not allow a 100% reductions for long periods of time, and our food doesn't either. I don't advocate 100% reductions. We need plant food just as much as we need protein and fat. There is a HUGE difference between 10-50g of carbs per day eating lots of veggies, and 300-500+g of carbs per day eating processed grains. Food sensitivities, I agree, are critical to address.

I also completely agree that our ancestors are omnivores, but that doesn't mean we need to eat 5-10x the carbs our ancestors did. 70-75% of our ancestors diet consisted of game. That's in calories. In bulk, yes plants take up a lot of the diet. It's not easy for a human to eat the 3-4k calories needed to sustain them in plants. Our ancestors didn't exactly sit idle talkign on forums all day. They were hard working people. That is why herbivores spend a 90% of their time eating. Also chimps are not human and their dietary requirements are quite different.

So a drastic reduction based on our new lifestyle helps dramatically.

People in my circles come to me, often frustrated, for advice on losing weight. I often see that their diet is mostly carbohydrate. All I suggest is a moderate reduction of carbs, eat enough protein and eat the rest in fat. Maintaining the deficit is important. Fat is needed for hormone production, and being fat-phobic is a recipe for failure. People often ignore important hormones that control our appetite and feelings of satiation, and eating to many crabs suppresses those important hormones.


I eat carbohydrate depending on my activity levels. If I'm at my desk doing nothing physical, I'm not going to eat a lot of carbs.

We don't have to abstain, we just need to consider the consequences of the food we eat and make good decisions. Carb reduction is a good idea. Complete elimination is not practical nor is it needed.

So back to my main point. Why eat carbs? Just get them naturally through a natural diet. The hormones will work themselves out and so will our body composition.

This is the smartest thing I've seen anyone say so far. that being said, it is in sharp contrast to your first post.

I agree, if you're NOT very active (desk job, very little activity outside of work), you will NOT want to eat a lot of carbs. That makes sense. However, the purpose of eating a lot of carbs if you are very active it to prevent your body from eating up the glycogen stores in your muscles. Once those are gone, you're screwed, and your workout is over.

I hear a lot of people talking about insulin spikes after eating carbs. I'm not going to say it doesn't happen, but I'm not at all surprised it does happen. the purpose of eating all the carbs is to burn it all off quickly. If we don't, the body needs to do something with it, and the only thing it can do is turn it into fat. This goes back onto the previous point: If you'r not burning it, don't eat it. If you are going to burn it, eat it up! The trick is to find the steady balance (oh, and your body needs a certain level of carbs to function. I doubt 20g a day will cut it).

My first post was very generalized. The discussion became much more specific.

It is true that you can lose intensity if you run out of glycogen. But that doesn't mean that you can't be effective in what you're doing. Endurance sports, especially very long marathons, people run out of glycogen pretty quickly, generally in the first few miles. After that, the pace slows down and the energy comes from fat.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/231986-when-does-glucose-convert-to-fat/

"GLUCOSE CONVERSION
Glucose is a six-carbon sugar molecule. Your body first converts this molecule into two three-carbon pyruvate molecules through the process of glycolysis and then into acetyl CoA. When your body requires immediate energy, acetyl CoA enters the Citric Acid Cycle creating energy molecules in the form of ATP. When glucose intake exceeds your body's energy needs--for example, you eat an ice-cream sundae and then go relax on the sofa for five hours--your body has no need to create more energy molecules. Therefore, acetyl CoA begins the process of fatty acid synthesis becoming triglycerides that are stored in the fat tissues of your body. These triglycerides are stored energy molecules which can be broken down later to give you the energy you need to, for example, get up off the couch and go for a bike ride"

And

"LIPOLYSIS
Fat is broken down through the process of lipolysis and beta-oxidation. These reactions occur in the mitochondria or energy warehouses of the cells. The process is cyclical; two carbons are removed from the long fatty acid chain per turn of the cycle, forming acetyl CoA. At this point, acetyl CoA enters the Citric Acid Cycle to produce energy in the form of ATP. This process uses the identical pathway glucose molecules used after glycolysis when they were directed to make energy for the cell rather than being stored as fat"

Also this video is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU&feature=player_detailpage#t=3747s

I don't think glucose is specifically necessary to our biology. We can burn fat for long term energy. We constantly need a steady blood glucose level, and we can get that from fat.

When you dump glucose in the blood, and if our level and muscles are full of glycogen, that glucose goes to fat, and we then convert it back to glucose for use. But it's much more steady coming from fat than it is from diet. Think burst vs steady stream. This is why people on low carb often comment that they have improved and stable energy levels instead of peaks and valleys.

For me, eating a lot of carbs, especially those white carbs like bread and pasta make me feel super bloated and uhhh back things up. Even if I don't actually weigh less, I feel lighter and have more energy when I limit them.

^This. I dont limit my carbs I just dont eat them in excess. When I was younger I used to have 2-3 slices of toast in the am, then for lunch at school a sandwich etc. I just dont feel that great if I eat too much. But I still need them for energy.

You're making things up again

Eaton et al. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: A twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1997) 51, 207±216

http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Eaton Paleo Nutri Review EJCN.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Diet

" The typical Inuit diet is high in protein and very high in fat – in their traditional diets, Inuit consumed an average of 75% of their daily energy intake from fat.[33]"

"In the 1920s anthropologist Vilhjalmur Stefansson lived with and studied a group of Inuit.[39] The study focused on the fact that the Inuit's extremely low-carbohydrate diet had no adverse effects on their health, nor indeed, Stefansson's own health. "

Clearly made up.

Dude, that's the INUIT you're talking about! they live above the arctic circle! They developed that diet from living up there - where there is no vegetation - for thousands of years! Of course their diet is comprised of 75% fat, they can't get food from anywhere else! Go look for information on the Azteks and tell me their diet is 75% fat, or how about the Chinese? 75% of their diet is rice.

I'm sorry, but you just lost a lot of credibility saying that. Not very many of use have Inuit as our ancestors.

As for the glycogen - cyclists don't use up their glycogen very quickly. Also, their races are often 5+ hours long, and it gets faster as time progresses, not slower. The idea in cycling is to NOT use your glycogen stores, by eating/drinking a mix of simple and complex carbohydrates (mostly simple) with a slight mix of protein. The body will burn the simple carbohydrates from what you eat first, before it touches anything else. You can also train your body to use fat before the glycogen stores as well, but it's a lot of serious hard work, and once you stop training it to do so, it'll quickly revert back to just using the glycogen stores.

In a real race situation, your body will never be able to break down fat as quickly as your muscles will need it.

The only reason why runners use up their glycogen stores is because they don't eat or drink as much as a cyclist does in an hour of racing. I really don't understand why.

Uhm. They are still human. Were does it say that their biology is so much more different than ours that their diet is bad?

So unless we train for it, we basically don't function on fat? That doesn't make any sense either. The fat is there to be used and the body's mechanics are capable of tapping the fat when needed. I lift an run on low carb all the time. I'm not crippled because of low carb.

I'm going to make me a fatty dinner.

PM me if you want to talk more.