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:

NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!


Don't believe that, but figured i'd give a rediculous answer for a rediculous question!

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

Carbs do not cause fat. Calorie surpluses cause fat. Eat a calorie deficit and you will lose fat. Resistance traing and you will retain muscle.

There is the perfect answer. So simple and so true.

@Johnny - this is totally OT but I think your cat rocks!

I eat plenty of carbs, and I have a flat belly. I just eat those carbs within my calorie limits and I'm fine. That's just my personal experience, though.

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.

aimforhealthy:

"...1. There is no such thing as an empty calorie. At its most nutrient deficient, a calorie still provides a unit of human energy. It isn't valueless..."



I didn't say that it was "valueless". A high-carbohydrate meal would have had a lot of value for a slave in ancient Egypt (who was constantly threatened with being whipped to death if he was unable to keep going, due to a lack of energy).



"...2. "Health-building" is a completely subjective term, as are words like "nutritious" and "healthy," but when you use it in absolute contexts like this, it's a false dichotomy. There is no real, definable, universally applicable category of "health-building foods" or "non-health-building foods." There is only food. The same food contributes to my health and your health in different ways..."


I more or less agree with you. But I do think that most of us understand the kinds of foods we "should" be eating: protein that is as free of added chemicals as we can manage (sorry for those of your who like bacon--however, there are "healthier" versions with reduced nitrites, etc.) , "good" fats (I don't think we need to review this as a great deal has been written about it--the FDA is even contemplating banning trans fats--imagine that!). Vegetables and fruits. But that doesn't mean that EVERYONE must avoid sugar and starch. A cookie may be an enjoyable and energy-providing treat for a very active, slender three-yea-old but not at all advised for a morbidly obese, Type II diabetic adult. Wouldn't you agree? (By the way, there is evidence that pre-pubescent children do not absorb fructose as well as older children and adults--so they do not pay the same metabolic penalty for eating it in whatever form--whether in a cookie, candy or an apple. Although the other nutrients in fruit still make fruit a higher value snack than cookies.)

"...ETA: there are weeks where I did have a day of eating nothing but donuts and coffee because they were there and they were yummy. I still lost my usual pound that week. This summer I spent a month eating fast food and candy every day. Lost 7 lbs that month. It is about calories. No matter how you try to spin it..."



I never said that calories weren't important and a great determiner of WEIGHT loss. I just prefer to work on losing body fat rather than mere body mass. Body composition is extremely important to the task and some calories will contribute more than others to improved body composition.

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.

you mean visceral fat?

Yep. Here's a decent article that speaks to the subject: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-visceral-fat.htm

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/

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.

Starting BMI 44.54 (3 pounds shy of super obesity). Starting waist size 54 inches. Body fat percentage according to Bod Pod after 4 weeks (and 20.5 pound mass loss) 46.5%.

Unless you have a health problem carbs don't really matter. When you still have body fat the following don't matter when it comes to reducing body fat: scale weight, muscle glycogen levels, bloating (and short term changes in waist size that are purely down to dietary change), sodium intake, carb intake.

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.

In the last 11 months I have averaged less than 4 hours sleep a night, have chronic depression (I have also lost 17 pounds in the last 3 months during a double depression phase), anxiety, social phobia, among other things, and according to the BBC's stress test (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24756311) I am highly stressed.

Blaming cortisol is like blaming insulin resistance (I didn't care if I were insulin resistant or not because I knew weight loss would have the biggest beneficial impact). A calorie deficit still works. Sure cortisol levels may have been an underlying cause of my 2,000 calorie surplus days, but in the long run it doesn't matter if you eat a tub of Ben & Jerry's or 6 Snickers bars in a day if you are in an overall deficit for the week/month.

The only reason my carb intake has recently dropped is purely because I have doubled my protein intake. As I have also significantly cut back on exercise (and going outdoors) I am burning 500-3,500 less calories per day, and since my dietary priorities have from the start been 1) calories, 2) protein, the carbs had to be cut back (although I still try to burn enough calories for 200 grams of carbs per day).

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.

No--there is a lot of new research that bears on the subject and would likely refute some or all of what has been posted but I'm to busy to go retrieve it. There's some interesting obesity/metabolic syndrome research coming out of the University of Colorado and the University of Florida these days.

Too busy to post sources, really? You're obviously not too busy to continue sitting here arguing with people.

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.

No--there is a lot of new research that bears on the subject and would likely refute some or all of what has been posted but I'm to busy to go retrieve it. There's some interesting obesity/metabolic syndrome research coming out of the University of Colorado and the University of Florida these days.

Too busy to post sources, really? You're obviously not too busy to continue sitting here arguing with people.

Going chasing after sources would take a lot more time and energy than I have at this point. Bye all!

Wheat belly has been dubunked and is ridiculous. He clearly misquoted and falsified the information presented. His referenced studies don't support his claims.

You're fine.

Serious question- Do you have links to studies that have debunked this? I haven't read the book, but have heard of bit about it and it makes sense for some people. Would like to read some scientific studies that have proven it to be untrue, if that is the case. And did it debunk everything that was claimed, or just certain parts?

http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.no/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.html

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2013/02/diet-book-review-wheat-belly.html

Wheat belly has been dubunked and is ridiculous. He clearly misquoted and falsified the information presented. His referenced studies don't support his claims.

You're fine.

Serious question- Do you have links to studies that have debunked this? I haven't read the book, but have heard of bit about it and it makes sense for some people. Would like to read some scientific studies that have proven it to be untrue, if that is the case. And did it debunk everything that was claimed, or just certain parts?

http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.no/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.html

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2013/02/diet-book-review-wheat-belly.html

While I agree with this, this is not a study.

It is a review and analysis of the book.

I have been following the wrong advice for 50 days on this site. A protein rich diet was making my liver work overtime. Today, I cut back on protein, and ate loads of vegetables to meet my daily allowance of 230 gram. I ate a whole avocado, and have not felt this energetic since I started on MFP. Carbs are energy, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.