CARBS??? VEGGIE carbs ok ? Or ?

There are no bad carbs.

Self-experiment; then you will know what works for you.

Well, we are in agreement that I think everyone here on MFP should take into consideration thier carbohydrate consumption. I think being intentional and intelligent about setting your all your macronutrient targets is a key part of the process.
Where we would disagree is that I don't see a lot of people promoting the idea of eating a "high" level of carbs. Help me to understand what you consider a "high" level of carbs? I completely agree that people should figure out what level of all macronutrients fit for them to optimize health and exercise performance.

Thank you for posting the studies. I will take a look. Always open to learning.

I think people saying things like "eat carbs, they're good for you" (paraphrased) and similar comments are pushing eating lots of carbs. I quite often see on here people saying that carbs should be 40-50% of your macros. For many of us, that would be a bad idea.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about what is a high level of carbs as I believe these vary depending on the person. Some people seem to do quite well with 300 grams/day or more. I generally eat about 75-100 grams/day but do sometimes have more without negative effects, i.e. on a day when I've done a 30, 40, 50 mile bike ride, for example. But if I have more without more intense/longer exercise than my normal 50-60 minutes/day, I have negative effects.

I should add that even people who been tested for diabetes, etc., and do not appear to have a metabolic disorder per the normal tests often have these results. While it's more critical for those of us with these disorders, better results from those changes are not limited to just those who have been diagnosed.

What data do you base your conclusions on beside your anecdotal experience and what you read on low carb forums. Based on all available research, there has not been a metabolic advantage proven to a low carb diet vs. other diets. There is certainly a segment of the population that responds better to low carb. You are obviously one of them.
But highlyrespected experts who have analyzed the data such as James Kreiger, who admittedly has a bias in favor of low carb diet and that they should have a metabolic advantage, say none has been proven and even so it would not trump a requireing a calorie deficit. From his analysis on the subject:
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.

If you feel you have credible studies to refute Krieger's conclusions, by all means post them.

You can also find a fairly detailed article on this topic by Steve Troutman, a highly respected fitness and nutrition expert who is one of our members here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/726526-an-objective-look-at-low-carb-dieting

I would also take issue with some of your logic. You are taking those that have metabolic issues and those who may have insulin sensitivity and adding those numbers together as having a common problem. They are not. They are two different issues. Those with metabolic issues have them generally because of chronic overeating. I know you don't agree but this is generally viewed as true by the medical and nutrition community. Those with gluten sensitivity don't nessesarily have an issue with non gluten based carbs.

In summary, because you have a sensitivity to carbs you are attemting to universalize low carb as a solution. This is faulty logic. It is called generalizing from the specific. If all those with metabolic issues can benefit from low carb that is 34% of the general population, leaving 66% that would not nessesarily. Also, most nutritional experts would not call 40% dietary carbs extremely high by any means.

I'm very happy for you that you have found the key to you health and weight management. But I sense that you have crossed the line from objectivity to advocacy. The overall data is pretty clear that low carb is great for some and not so much for others. I'm pretty sure, based upon that, I will not convince you and you will not convince me.

Best wishes on your progress!

If you spike insulin too fast does it cause you to store more fat??...i've read so much on this im generally confused now.

If you spike insulin too fast does it cause you to store more fat??...i've read so much on this im generally confused now.

http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319


Relevant extract:


"MYTH: Carbohydrate Drives Insulin, Which Drives Fat Storage

FACT: Your Body Can Synthesize and Store Fat Even When Insulin Is Low

One of the biggest misconceptions regarding insulin is that it’s needed for fat storage. It isn’t. Your body has ways to store and retain fat even when insulin is low. For example, there is an enzyme in your fat cells called hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL). HSL helps break down fat. Insulin suppresses the activity of HSL, and thus suppresses the breakdown of fat. This has caused people to point fingers at carbohydrate for causing fat gain.

However, fat will also suppress HSL even when insulin levels are low. This means you will be unable to lose fat even when carbohydrate intake is low, if you are overeating on calories. If you ate no carbohydrate but 5,000 calories of fat, you would still be unable to lose fat even though insulin would not be elevated. This would be because the high fat intake would suppress HSL. This also means that, if you’re on a low carbohydrate diet, you still need to eat less calories than you expend to lose weight.."

Thank you for explaining this.

Your body uses them all as glucose, the source is irrelevant.

My insulin-resistant body would like to disagree with you.

OP: it's generally accepted that getting carbs from fruits, veggies, and whole grains is much, much better than getting them from simple starches (potatoes, white pasta, white bread) that break down quickly. The carbs in fruit/veggies/whole grains break down into glucose much slower, which is why those are preferable to things like french fries and white dinner rolls.

^^^ What she said!! Anyone who insulin resistant will tell you that there are good carbs and not-so-good for you carbs. The fruits and veggies are really good for you. Just stay away from the starches as much as you can. =0)

This makes sense for someone with insulin resistance. It means absolutely nothing to someone that isn't insulin resistant. Carbs don't cause insulin resistance, the inability to process carbs is a symptom of insulin resistance. Insulin resistance is caused by excess fat in the blood stream, that inhibits insulin from connecting with the insulin receptors in muscle tissue.

In other words, having a high level of body fat causes insulin resistance problems, eating carbs does not, unless you over consume them to the point of increasing body fat.

Also, for someone with insulin resistance, slow releasing carbs like starches are much better for them than fast digesting carbs like fruit. Just saying, my mother was a Type 1 diabetic, she could eat pasta way more often than she could eat fruit.

If you spike insulin too fast does it cause you to store more fat??...i've read so much on this im generally confused now.

http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319


Relevant extract:


"MYTH: Carbohydrate Drives Insulin, Which Drives Fat Storage

FACT: Your Body Can Synthesize and Store Fat Even When Insulin Is Low

One of the biggest misconceptions regarding insulin is that it’s needed for fat storage. It isn’t. Your body has ways to store and retain fat even when insulin is low. For example, there is an enzyme in your fat cells called hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL). HSL helps break down fat. Insulin suppresses the activity of HSL, and thus suppresses the breakdown of fat. This has caused people to point fingers at carbohydrate for causing fat gain.

However, fat will also suppress HSL even when insulin levels are low. This means you will be unable to lose fat even when carbohydrate intake is low, if you are overeating on calories. If you ate no carbohydrate but 5,000 calories of fat, you would still be unable to lose fat even though insulin would not be elevated. This would be because the high fat intake would suppress HSL. This also means that, if you’re on a low carbohydrate diet, you still need to eat less calories than you expend to lose weight.."

I believe the actual myth here is that ONLY insulin drives fat storage, which isn't true, obviously. If it was we'd be able to maintain a perfect weight eating Atkins.

However, I do believe that it's the mixture of over eating calories AND carbs had gotten so many people so big. High carbs and high calories compliment each other for weight gain, just like calorie deficit *and* low-moderate carb can compliment weight loss. Because the fact is that even if insulin isn't the only reason you gain weight, the conversion from carbs to fat is *so* quick and easy.

But hey, I don't have any sources, but all of my research suggests to me that this is a viable reason why some people lose weight better with LC- because it keeps the simplest pound-packer at bay. Makes sense to me, anyway.

If you spike insulin too fast does it cause you to store more fat??...i've read so much on this im generally confused now.

http://www.weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319


Relevant extract:


"MYTH: Carbohydrate Drives Insulin, Which Drives Fat Storage

FACT: Your Body Can Synthesize and Store Fat Even When Insulin Is Low

One of the biggest misconceptions regarding insulin is that it’s needed for fat storage. It isn’t. Your body has ways to store and retain fat even when insulin is low. For example, there is an enzyme in your fat cells called hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL). HSL helps break down fat. Insulin suppresses the activity of HSL, and thus suppresses the breakdown of fat. This has caused people to point fingers at carbohydrate for causing fat gain.

However, fat will also suppress HSL even when insulin levels are low. This means you will be unable to lose fat even when carbohydrate intake is low, if you are overeating on calories. If you ate no carbohydrate but 5,000 calories of fat, you would still be unable to lose fat even though insulin would not be elevated. This would be because the high fat intake would suppress HSL. This also means that, if you’re on a low carbohydrate diet, you still need to eat less calories than you expend to lose weight.."

I believe the actual myth here is that ONLY insulin drives fat storage, which isn't true, obviously. If it was we'd be able to maintain a perfect weight eating Atkins.

However, I do believe that it's the mixture of over eating calories AND carbs had gotten so many people so big. High carbs and high calories compliment each other for weight gain, just like calorie deficit *and* low-moderate carb can compliment weight loss. Because the fact is that even if insulin isn't the only reason you gain weight, the conversion from carbs to fat is *so* quick and easy.

But hey, I don't have any sources, but all of my research suggests to me that this is a viable reason why some people lose weight better with LC- because it keeps the simplest pound-packer at bay. Makes sense to me, anyway.

See bolded part for what it is saying is not true

I love my veggie/fruit carbs, but they aren't horrible even if you're trying to stay lowish. I've had 8-9 servings of fruit and veggies today , a big bowl of knock off cheerios, and a handful of teddy grahams, and I'm still under 200 on my carbs. I think they're an important source of fuel (I'm a runner) though. I'd just go with not depriving yourself, and figuring out what works for you by trying different stuff out.

edit: if you're asking about whether it's okay when trying to lose weight, I haven't seen a difference between lower or higher carbs for me, but I do try to get them from whole food sources, which I think are good in general.