CARBS ARE GOOD!

Options
1…678911

Replies

  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    Good for you. Many do and that is what makes doing it or not personal preference and not based on metabolic advantage.
    Except when it does prove to offer an advantage...
  • vytamindi
    vytamindi Posts: 845 Member
    Options
    Meh, they're overrated :)
  • xxshenanigansxx
    xxshenanigansxx Posts: 6
    Options
    Love carbs! It's a wonder I don't continuously go over on my allowance every day lol :tongue:
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    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.

    This article and these studies specifically compare low carb to low fat diets. The first study also says a mediteranean diet performed with similar results to the low carb diet against the low fat diet. Ok, so in comparison to low fat diets, low carb and mediteranean performs better. Who is recommeding a low fat diet as the way to go? So, by definition the first study shows that there is at least one other diet that performs as well as low carb against low fat.

    This data does not demonstrate a metabolic advantage except when compared to low fat diets. I'm guessing most have read other data that the whole low fat recommendation contributed to the trend towards obesity, among other thing over the last 25 years. If you've got anything that shows broader comparisons I'd love to see it.

    But as I've said, Krieger, Aragon, McDonald and Troutman say there isn't any and they are very credible. FTR, McDonald believes in Ketogenic diets for stubborn fat and Kreiger's stated bias is that there should be a metabolic advantage! But no proof of one currently exists that he is aware of. He is a highly credible source and on top of the research as he is a nutritional researcher by profession.

    Again and probably for the last time, you choose low carb? That's your business. Do what you feel is best for you. But there is no proven metabolic advantage. You want to believe there is based on a lack of evidence? Again, your business. But if you post that kind of nonsense on a public fitness and nutrition forum, there is likely someone who is going to challenge it. And rightly so.
  • mudya
    mudya Posts: 128 Member
    Options
    I agree! I am always at the high end of my daily carb intake and am successfully losing around 2lbs a week on a 1200-1300 diet. The carbs are having no effect on the actual weight loss. This may depend on the actual carbs I am consuming, but either way calories is the main thing.

    Feel free to add me to view my diary
  • MakingThisHappen
    MakingThisHappen Posts: 32
    Options
    CARBS!
    Hells yeah I love me some carbs!

    It's the best thing MFP has taught me to be honest! :happy:
    Good carbs are NOT evil and will NOT make you fat!
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    Options

    Again and probably for the last time, you choose low carb? That's your business.

    good grief I hope so. DUde- you seem obsessed.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    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.

    I already agreed a long time ago (in this thread) that high quality carbs are important for those who engage in rigorous athletics. But those who have metabolic problems (obesity, Type II diabetes, high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, thyroid disorders, etc.) need to restrict carbohydrates (along with gradually increasing exercise) to heal their bodies. But they can never go back to eating unrestricted carbohydrates or they will be back in the same situation from which they escaped.

    The body can actually get along just fine without sugar and grain. Both are relatively recent developments in the history of the human race. Hunter-gatherers ate neither and they were typically quite healthy. Imagine the European settlers coming to America. The native hunter-gatherers were quite healthy and strong. The Europeans with their more "refined" diets (as long as the staples lasted) were at a distinct disadvantage in the New World. The natives took pity on them and supplied them with food. Without that, they would have perished. The body can survive on grain and man-made foods---but to really thrive, it needs vegetables, fat, some source of animal protein, and some fruit. Grain was developed to ward off famine. It was a relatively easy way to store non-perishable calories. It doesn't mean that it is the best way to nourish our bodies. Just the phytic acid alone in whole grain blocks much of the uptake of the macro-minerals, zinc, iron, magnesium and calcium. And sugars are a disaster for most of us who are not high-performance athletes. Nutritionally, they are less than zero.
  • Audiejude
    Audiejude Posts: 42
    Options
    75% of your calorie intake baby!
    Vegetables are pure carb.
  • Skinny_Beans
    Skinny_Beans Posts: 405 Member
    Options
    I find it hard to eat enough carbs, it seems I eat way more protein.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    75% of your calorie intake baby!
    Vegetables are pure carb.

    I do not restrict vegetables---I only eliminate sugar and grain and fruit to a certain degree. I generally eat 2-3 servings of fruit per day and lots of vegetables in addition to protein and good fats.
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    Options
    75% of your calorie intake baby!

    leaving 25% for both fat and protein?

    horrible idea
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    75% of your calorie intake baby!

    leaving 25% for both fat and protein?

    horrible idea

    I agree. Either the protein will be inadequate to maintain muscle mass or a very low fat diet will cause a depletion of essential fatty acids. Neither is at all good.
  • 70davis
    70davis Posts: 348 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    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.

    This article and these studies specifically compare low carb to low fat diets. The first study also says a mediteranean diet performed with similar results to the low carb diet against the low fat diet. Ok, so in comparison to low fat diets, low carb and mediteranean performs better. Who is recommeding a low fat diet as the way to go? So, by definition the first study shows that there is at least one other diet that performs as well as low carb against low fat.

    This data does not demonstrate a metabolic advantage except when compared to low fat diets. I'm guessing most have read other data that the whole low fat recommendation contributed to the trend towards obesity, among other thing over the last 25 years. If you've got anything that shows broader comparisons I'd love to see it.

    But as I've said, Krieger, Aragon, McDonald and Troutman say there isn't any and they are very credible. FTR, McDonald believes in Ketogenic diets for stubborn fat and Kreiger's stated bias is that there should be a metabolic advantage! But no proof of one currently exists that he is aware of. He is a highly credible source and on top of the research as he is a nutritional researcher by profession.

    Again and probably for the last time, you choose low carb? That's your business. Do what you feel is best for you. But there is no proven metabolic advantage. You want to believe there is based on a lack of evidence? Again, your business. But if you post that kind of nonsense on a public fitness and nutrition forum, there is likely someone who is going to challenge it. And rightly so.
    The low carb diet in the first of seventeen studies on that page still out performed the Mediterranean diet (which is also a lower carb diet, btw) and the low fat diet in that study but the biggest take away? The low carb diet didn't restrict calories while the other two diets did.

    The low carb dieters lost more weight than the other calorie restricted diets, without hunger, eating as much as they liked. That doesn't seem like a big deal to you? Seriously?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    The low carb diet in the first of seventeen studies on that page still out performed the Mediterranean diet (which is also a lower carb diet, btw) and the low fat diet in that study but the biggest take away? The low carb diet didn't restrict calories while the other two diets did.

    I don't know what you mean by "lower carb" ("lower" than what?) but a Mediterranean diet is heavily plant based including plenty of whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes, along with olive oil, fish and lean meats. While there is no universal definition of how many carbs = "low carb", a Mediterranean diet would not fit most definitions.

    Also, while it is quite easy to maintain a healthy weight on a Mediterranean diet, it is not a weight loss diet per se.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    The low carb diet in the first of seventeen studies on that page still out performed the Mediterranean diet (which is also a lower carb diet, btw) and the low fat diet in that study but the biggest take away? The low carb diet didn't restrict calories while the other two diets did.

    I don't know what you mean by "lower carb" ("lower" than what?) but a Mediterranean diet is heavily plant based including plenty of whole grains, vegetables, fruits and legumes, along with olive oil, fish and lean meats. While there is no universal definition of how many carbs = "low carb", a Mediterranean diet would not fit most definitions.

    Also, while it is quite easy to maintain a healthy weight on a Mediterranean diet, it is not a weight loss diet per se.

    According to some definitions that I have seen, a "lower carb diet" would be one in which the dieters ate a total of 75-100 grams of carbohydrate per day. Low enough to get the benefits of appetite suppression that comes from lower blood sugar/insulin but not so low as to put the dieter into "ketosis". The Atkins diet and other " very low carb" (60 grams or less of carbohydrate per day) plans actually aim to put the dieter into ketosis but that is not a healthy state for the body to be in, long-term. Ketotic diets also tend to be very high in fat which is unhealthy from a bowel cancer perspective. While moderate fat is healthy (contrary to what you have been told, a low-fat or "no-fat" diet is not a particularly healthy diet as it tends to deplete one's supply of essential fatty acids) it also has the added benefit of suppressing appetite by suppressing blood sugar swings that provoke binge eating.

    The Mediterranean diet is a very healthy diet but may not be low enough in carbs to get the desired fat loss---especially for obese women who, because of their hormones, tend to store carbohydrates as fat instead of burning them for energy.
  • fishgutzy
    fishgutzy Posts: 2,807 Member
    Options
    Low fat is also linked to depression are many other health problems and can actually raise triglycerides and bad cholesterol.
    I put my fat intake target around 60%. I don't always hit that. But I don't eat anything with an eye toward lower fat.
    Whole eggs, whole milk. Sausage, pork. And the result was a 30% drop in cholesterol and triglycerides and a drop in blood glucose and A1C to normal levels. That is enough evidence for me.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    Low fat is also linked to depression are many other health problems and can actually raise triglycerides and bad cholesterol.
    I put my fat intake target around 60%. I don't always hit that. But I don't eat anything with an eye toward lower fat.
    Whole eggs, whole milk. Sausage, pork. And the result was a 30% drop in cholesterol and triglycerides and a drop in blood glucose and A1C to normal levels. That is enough evidence for me.

    Yep! Same happened for me AND I have been able to get off my B.P. medication! It was wrecking my muscles and that made me gain body fat while I was kidding myself that I wasn't gaining weight so I must be okay. I was pre-diabetic before I started on the lower-carb plan too. Now my blood profiles are great and my muscles don't hurt anymore! (By-the-way---CONGRATULATIONS on your health victories!) :smile:
  • chubbybuddha101
    chubbybuddha101 Posts: 4
    Options
    50% of my daily calories are carbs! I love me some carbs! Try training/running a half marathon without them!

Categories