can you stll lose belly fat and have carbs?

I have found that since I cut out wheat (ever read the book, Wheat Belly?) and added sugar that I have lost a disproportionate share of abdominal fat. I used to just lose it all over when I was at a higher percentage of carbs. Now, I limit my carbs to 20% and still avoid the added sugar and wheat. I eat a bit of organic, sourdough rye and oatmeal almost every morning. Other than that, I get my carbs from veggies and fruits.

Wheat Belly is absolute nonsense. Your claims are equally ridiculous.

OP, do not listen to this person.

Still your usual rudeness, I see. What exactly is ridiculous about what I have said? I have lost a little less than six pounds in the last four months--yet I have gone down a size in jeans and the ones I am wearing right now are loose around the waist. You have posted nothing in support of your claims yet you feel free to insult those who have actual experience with what they claim. Tsk-tsk. For shame!

The ridiculous thing is that you have zero data. "Oh I lost weight, and my belly got smaller!" Oh. Well OK. Happens to the rest of us too. My abdomen skinfold went from 23mm to 9.5 mm while averaging something like 200+ g of carbs a day.

Besides, anecdotes are not data. The idea that carbs somehow contribute to belly fat is completely without any merit whatsoever.

There's a LOT of scientific evidence that lowering excessively high blood sugar leads to loss of body fat (and almost every obese person has chronically elevated levels of blood sugar--duh, that's how they got fat!). Further, almost every obese woman has leptin resistance, and a lot of them have insulin resistance as well. The most effective way to lower both is to restrict carbohydrates. The medical community seems to be confused over the whole subject of carbohydrates. But, people are starting to share information on their weight loss and lots of "anecdotes" add up to the importance of restricting carbohydrates--particularly the "empty calorie" kind like sucrose and wheat starch.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1120102-scapegoat-of-this-decade-sugar






I raise you actual studies.

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.

www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism



Here are studies that show GI didn't make a significant difference

An 18-mo randomized trial of a low-glycemic-index diet and weight change in Brazilian women

http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/707.abstract

Conclusions: Long-term weight changes were not significantly different between the HGI and LGI diet groups; therefore, this study does not support a benefit of an LGI diet for weight control. Favorable changes in lipids confirmed previous results.



Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177201

In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.



Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial

http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/4/1023.abstract?ijkey=57903af923cb2fcdc065ffd37b00a32e22f4c5cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Conclusions:These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.



No effect of a diet with a reduced glycaemic index on satiety, energy intake and body weight in overweight and obese women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17923862

CONCLUSION:

This study provides no evidence to support an effect of a reduced GI diet on satiety, energy intake or body weight in overweight/obese women. Claims that the GI of the diet per se may have specific effects on body weight may therefore be misleading.



Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00225.x/full

Summary

The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation


HFCS not linked to fatty liver disease

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/apnm-2012-0322#.UaPWA5G9KSN

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/y2012-122#.UaPW95G9KSM

"Recent research indicates an association between brain dysfunction and the pathogenesis of metabolic syndrome. To investigate this, we created a Medline search (up to December 2011) of articles in PubMed. The results indicated that refined carbohydrates, saturated and total fat, high levels of ω-6 fatty acids, and low levels of ω-3 fatty acids and other long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), all in conjunction with sedentary behaviour and mental stress can predispose to inflammation...."

It seems that food science, like all other science has been compromised by political considerations these days. I once heard a chemist insist that you could get just about any conclusion you wanted in a scientific report (for the right amount of money in a research grant, of course). The whole GMO debacle in Washington is a case in point. Frankenscience will eventually extinguish the vast majority of human life on the planet--if we let it.

Talks about the 'science' behind carbs and belly fat.

Is given examples of science that debunk the 'science'.

Claims science can't be trusted because of political money conspiracy instead of debating the point.

:laugh:

I'm old enough to be a 22-year-old's mother - that is in fact a handful of years older than my actual kid.

This week I had pumpkin pie, Coolwhip, tons of fruit, waffles, cereal and other carbs for breakfast EVERY DAY. I had couscous (a carb) and pizza and pizza rolls and bread for dinner EVERY DAY. I am not much of an athlete.

I lost 1.2 lbs this week.

Please err on the side of science and common sense. There is no devil food. Eat what you want and work it all into your calorie goals.

Well, if calories were the only consideration, then why don't you simply eat your daily quotient of calories in cup cakes?

Calories are the only consideration in weight loss. Nutrient intake matters for health and body composition.

Ahh--now we're getting somewhere, Jonny. I would totally agree with your last statement. Permanent and healthy-as-possible fat loss is the sensible thing to do. And the best way to do that is to restrict "empty" calories while increasing health-building foods and increasing daily activity. Not rocket science.

Not everyone has the ability to be a high performance athlete who can eat anything he/she wants and expect to stay slim and trim.

Of course. People who aren't high performance athletes are the ones who store belly fat with carbs. Athletes don't. They're special snowflakes.

High performance athletes have very well-developed musculature and very low body fat. But they will often complain of "getting fat" while not intensively training.

Uh, no kidding. Because they eat more or less the same and are burning way fewer calories.

Carbs do not contribute preferentially to belly fat, no matter what unscientific books or sugar alarmists tell you.

I don't think that they do in a direct way. But chronically elevated levels of blood sugar elevate cortisol levels and high cortisol levels will cause fat to be deposited "centrally" (that is, on the abdomen) preferentially. I'm sure you know that.

I gain three pants sizes everytime I eat a bowl of cereal.

True story.

It seems that food science, like all other science has been compromised by political considerations these days. I once heard a chemist insist that you could get just about any conclusion you wanted in a scientific report (for the right amount of money in a research grant, of course). The whole GMO debacle in Washington is a case in point. Frankenscience will eventually extinguish the vast majority of human life on the planet--if we let it.

So essentially you have no scientific studies to refute his and instead put on a tinfoil hat and claim conspiracy.

Got it.

I eat carbs and I think my picture speaks for itself in terms of belly fat.

Have you ever been morbidly obese? I eat carbs myself--but I have to be very careful about the ones I do eat.

I have lost 30kg over the years. I also have no thyroid function and rheumatoid arthritis so do not pay heed to excuses.

Your thyroid function might improve if you cut out gluten--mine did when I drastically cut back on all gluten and eliminated wheat gluten entirely. Here's an article that explains the possible connection of gluten and poor thyroid function: http://keyboardathletes.com/blog/2009/11/05/the-thyroid-gluten-connection/

It seems that food science, like all other science has been compromised by political considerations these days. I once heard a chemist insist that you could get just about any conclusion you wanted in a scientific report (for the right amount of money in a research grant, of course). The whole GMO debacle in Washington is a case in point. Frankenscience will eventually extinguish the vast majority of human life on the planet--if we let it.

Science is BS! Unless it says what I want it to say, in which case I will use it to support my arguments. Scientific results that do not confirm my preconceived notions, biases, and fears will be summarily rejected as "Frankenscience" that is intentionally misleading us for money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance