CARBS??? VEGGIE carbs ok ? Or ?

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.

Conversion from carbs to fat is NOT quick and easy, it's actually exceedingly complicated, which is why it rarely ever happens. Carbs are burned for energy, they don't stick around in your body long enough to ever need to be converted to fat. 90% of the fat in a person's fat cells are fatty acids, not carbs.

And as others have mentioned (and I think I mentioned it earlier as well,) protein spikes insulin levels just as much, and sometimes even higher than carbs do, which pretty much destroys the entire carbs/insulin/fat myth.

Additionally, to state the obvious, the only time carbs or protein or fat do get stored as fat is in a calorie surplus. If you are burning everything you consume, what can get stored as fat??

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!

I'm hardly an advocate or zealot as I have said here and in virtually every discussion I've ever been in regarding carb intake that the level of carbs one should eat is going to vary depending on various factors for that person. I am just as opposed to someone claiming that low-carb dieting is best for everyone as I am opposed to those saying that we should eat all the carbs we want. Extremes in anything are usually a bad idea. And, yes, I have gone into discussions promoting low-carb for everybody and said just that.

And that's all I've been objecting to here. When people come on and say "this works for me so everyone should do it" (paraphrased), that's anecdotal so why aren't you jumping them for their anecdotal evidence? And, when I have said this isn't true for me, I've been very clear that this isn't true for me. I have not extrapolated my own experience to mean that what works for me will work for everyone. If you can find where I've done that, please show me so I can fix it because I never want to give anyone that impression.

You, on the other hand, appear to be doing just what you're accusing me of.

I like Troutman's work and have his website bookmarked. I don't always agree with everything he says but I think, for the most part, his work is excellent.

I can't help but note that in your cut-and-paste of his post, you left out the statement that Krieger concluded with support for the MA hypothesis. So your statement that I need to refute Krieger's findings is incorrect as his conclusion supports my contention.

I also find it amusing that quite often those who dispute that many of us would be more successful eating less carbs are the same people who advocating an increase in protein. These same people will quite often talk about the positive thermogenesis effect of eating more protein which results in a higher calorie burn in order to digest that protein. (Not saying you're one of these, just find it a common occurrence.) It's interesting to me that those who believe that one type of macro can effect metabolic rates deny the fact that another macro can do the same. The lack of consistency is intrigueing.

Diabetes, hypoglycemia, PCOS, pre-diabetes, etc., are all metabolic disorders. There are also numerous other genetic metabolic disorders that have to do with enzyme levels and other obscure situations that effect a very low percentage of people. I think you are confusing my use of the term metabolic disorder with Metabolic Syndrome which is a specific cluster of disorders (diabetes, high blood pressure, and more). [ETA: I have found nothing at reputable medical websites like WebMD to indicate your contention that metabolic disorders are caused by overweight. Can it be a contributing factor? Sure, but there are slender Type2 Diabetics. Personally, I did not gain weight until after diagnosis with hypoglycemia.]

And I think 1/3 of the general population is statistically significant enough to not just throw out everyone can eat 40% or more of their diet in carbs statements. If you add in the 5-7% of those with gluten intolerance issues, we're up to 40% or so of the general population. And, as I've previously stated, I would bet that the percentage of people on MFP with some degree of these problems is higher than the general population because these issues are simply more prevalent in those who are overweight/obese. So if this raises the number on here who might have a problem with blood sugar issues (even if they are totally unaware of it) to a guesstimate of 40-45% (which I don't think is unreasonable), it becomes even more crucial to inform people that this might be a potential issue for them without being dogmatic about it from either POV.

Whole, unprocessed foods that contain carbohydrates, like fruit, vegetables and legumes are OK to eat as much as you desire.

Whole (non-glutenous) grains and white potatoes can be eaten, but if you are not losing weight, these would be the whole, plant based carbs to limit first.

Processed, refined carbohydrates, like breads, sugar, flour, HFCS, agave sweetener, etc, stay away from. The ideal amount of these foods is ZERO, and the closer you can get your intake of these foods to zero, the healthier you will be.

^^^ All of this ^^^

ATKINS sucks (unless you're looking for a new liver)...don't do it! And vegetables and fruits are WAY OKAY! EAT THEM and LOTS OF THEM!

Just my humble opinion

Edit: there is nothing wrong with bread, pasta and rice...just make sure to eat whole grain (those with high fiber...where the fiber hasn't been processed out ...note - not one's processed then fiber added back)

Considering you appear to know absolutely nothing about the Atkins eating plan, why should I believe anything else you say?

Add to that, you obviously don't understand that people with very metabolic disorders (hypoglycemia, diabetes, PCOS, insulin resistance, to name the major ones), may not be "WAY OKAY" with lots of fruit.

Dogmatic statements drive me batty. What you're saying might be true for you and a certain percentage of others but it's not true for 100% of us. Don't give out advice like it is.

All I need to know about Atkins is that bread is too delicious to give up.

Whole, unprocessed foods that contain carbohydrates, like fruit, vegetables and legumes are OK to eat as much as you desire.

Whole (non-glutenous) grains and white potatoes can be eaten, but if you are not losing weight, these would be the whole, plant based carbs to limit first.

Processed, refined carbohydrates, like breads, sugar, flour, HFCS, agave sweetener, etc, stay away from. The ideal amount of these foods is ZERO, and the closer you can get your intake of these foods to zero, the healthier you will be.

^^^ All of this ^^^

what is wrong with bread and sugar? I am so over this. You all can weigh what you weigh, have at it.

I eat them both daily, and weigh a little less every time as the days turn to weeks and months. :flowerforyou:

Stop worrying about carbs and just eat healthy food that fit your macros.

My chocolate covered,creme filled donut told me there are no bad carbs, especially when eating at a deficit. I believe my donut.

Look at history. Nature gave us naturally easy access to mainly veg, berries and seeds, the occasional gain from meat related products, and, on occasion, something sweet like honey or fruit from a tree. Stick with veges, lower amounts of everything else, fruit included. The fibre in fruit negates the fructose you'll consume. If you do this, the weight should drop off, you'll cure your candida's cravings for sugar and be bouncing with energy, and you'll be doing your body a massive favour in the fight against disease, esp. cancer.

Whole, unprocessed foods that contain carbohydrates, like fruit, vegetables and legumes are OK to eat as much as you desire.

Whole (non-glutenous) grains and white potatoes can be eaten, but if you are not losing weight, these would be the whole, plant based carbs to limit first.

Processed, refined carbohydrates, like breads, sugar, flour, HFCS, agave sweetener, etc, stay away from. The ideal amount of these foods is ZERO, and the closer you can get your intake of these foods to zero, the healthier you will be.

^^^ All of this ^^^

what is wrong with bread and sugar? I am so over this. You all can weigh what you weigh, have at it.

high glycemic impact, high-calorie density, little-to-no micro-nutrients, little-to-no fiber, low water content, no anti-oxidants, etc.

How is that relevant when included as part of a balanced diet?

That's the big question isn't it? No such thing as bad foods just bad diets, I get it and agree for the most part but playing devils advocate; On a calorie for calorie basis any higher nutrient foods that are displaced with highly refined grain products and refined sugars could be interpreted as less than healthy. Whether some refined foods impacts health is debatable and you would probably need to look at indigenous peoples where these highly refined foods were not part of the diet and then introduced.

How is that relevant when included as part of a balanced diet?

Depends how much you have. The vast majority of people's concept of a balanced diet is not balanced at all, processed junky stuff should comprise no more than about 10% of daily calories - if you want to use that on bread crack on. But people don't, they pretend bread made in a factory with super finely ground flour and chemical additives is a natural wholefood and then expect to have 'treats' on top. There is no bread tree, there is no flour plant: if you want to eat wheat eat WHOLE unadulterated wheat grains, rolled to flatten at most. Or bake your own multigrain bread using flour that has been stoneground and seeds/ whole grains and not just wheat.

'You' is generic you not necessarily personal BTW.

I think your views are a bit extreme and alarmist.