Is a Low-Carb Diet for You? Most Likely Not.

The curriculum for the Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist exam does go into detail about gluconeogensis as a result of restricted carbs. However, the information is intended for athletes with enormous energy outputs on a daily basis. But, to what extreme would this actually occur?

It's an interesting question and I couldn't tell you exactly, especially because your body's needs for glucose actually drop as your carb intake falls to low levels for a period of time (due to your brain running mostly on ketones, rather than glucose).

All that said, I think it comes down to what sort of athlete we're talking about and what "low carb" means for them (and what is considered "low" is a huge range). For instance, if you're a sprinter or competing power lifter, I'm skeptical that staying in ketosis is the best fit for you. On the other hand, I saw an article not too long ago about the Lakers following a "low carb" diet with only 25% carbs and 50% fat with "bulletproof coffee" being a pre-game drink of choice.

And if we're talking average Joe who uses MFP to try and drop some pounds, I think it really just comes down to what they're happiest with. Certainly when I see someone posting that they're miserable on their caloric deficit and going hungry, eating more "low carb" foods is the first thing that pops in my mind.

I am not starving at all. Far from it. I am happy and satiated.

The curriculum for the Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist exam does go into detail about gluconeogensis as a result of restricted carbs. However, the information is intended for athletes with enormous energy outputs on a daily basis. But, to what extreme would this actually occur?

It's an interesting question and I couldn't tell you exactly, especially because your body's needs for glucose actually drop as your carb intake falls to low levels for a period of time (due to your brain running mostly on ketones, rather than glucose).

All that said, I think it comes down to what sort of athlete we're talking about and what "low carb" means for them (and what is considered "low" is a huge range). For instance, if you're a sprinter or competing power lifter, I'm skeptical that staying in ketosis is the best fit for you. On the other hand, I saw an article not too long ago about the Lakers following a "low carb" diet with only 25% carbs and 50% fat with "bulletproof coffee" being a pre-game drink of choice.

And if we're talking average Joe who uses MFP to try and drop some pounds, I think it really just comes down to what they're happiest with. Certainly when I see someone posting that they're miserable on their caloric deficit and going hungry, eating more "low carb" foods is the first thing that pops in my mind.

Wonder if that coffee is where all the carbs come from since it's pregame. Still seems extreme, IMO, given the energy output during an NBA game.

Bulletproof coffee is usually just coconut oil (or mct oil), unsalted butter, and coffee. It is usually blended and turns into a frothy creamy drink. I don't really use it however it actually tastes pretty good and for people doing LCHF diets it is a good way to increase fat.

The curriculum for the Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist exam does go into detail about gluconeogensis as a result of restricted carbs. However, the information is intended for athletes with enormous energy outputs on a daily basis. But, to what extreme would this actually occur?

It's an interesting question and I couldn't tell you exactly, especially because your body's needs for glucose actually drop as your carb intake falls to low levels for a period of time (due to your brain running mostly on ketones, rather than glucose).

All that said, I think it comes down to what sort of athlete we're talking about and what "low carb" means for them (and what is considered "low" is a huge range). For instance, if you're a sprinter or competing power lifter, I'm skeptical that staying in ketosis is the best fit for you. On the other hand, I saw an article not too long ago about the Lakers following a "low carb" diet with only 25% carbs and 50% fat with "bulletproof coffee" being a pre-game drink of choice.

And if we're talking average Joe who uses MFP to try and drop some pounds, I think it really just comes down to what they're happiest with. Certainly when I see someone posting that they're miserable on their caloric deficit and going hungry, eating more "low carb" foods is the first thing that pops in my mind.

Wonder if that coffee is where all the carbs come from since it's pregame. Still seems extreme, IMO, given the energy output during an NBA game.

Bulletproof coffee is usually just coconut oil (or mct oil), unsalted butter, and coffee. It is usually blended and turns into a frothy creamy drink. I don't really use it however it actually tastes pretty good and for people doing LCHF diets it is a good way to increase fat.

Coconut oil being a MCT also is used for immediate ATP and is metabolized like a carb wouldbe , so a good pre game drink for sure.

Personally, low carb dieting for me is hideous. Same with high carb too. A sensible and balanced amount of carbs works well for me, they particularly help in the mornings and around workouts. Go overboard, however, and I feel sluggish. each to their own!

I can only report what works for me. I don't necessarily fit the "low carb" perfectly. Some define low carb as below 50g per day.
I can say that since I reduced carbs with a target of 25% of total calories or less, avoiding processed carbs and white starchy vegetables, that my total cholesterol has dropped about 40%. My HDL is now higher than LDL. Triglycerides are down nearly 75% from over 300 to less than 100. I am no longer pre-diabetic as well.

As for energy during workout? On Saturday morning I go from a 5000 yard swim into a 1 hour spin class. At most I have a single Detour protein bar between. 15g protein and 17g carbs. 170 calories. My total burn for the workout is over 2000kCal. I don't have breakfast until I get home after the spin class.

Everyone is different. There is no one formula that works for everyone.
But there are some things that science proves is unhealthy. That being a low fat high protein diet.
The brain needs fat to function properly. Fat regulates hormone production as well. fat in the food doesn't mean fat on you.
And low fat process foods have a lot more sugar in them, generally speaking.
My targets are 25% carb, 30% protein, 45% fat.
For fats I eat a table spoon of coconut oil every day. In the winter it is more like chew. It solidifies around 75 degrees.
lard, rib eye steak with the fat on. Chicken with the skin on, full fat salad dressing too.

Coincidentally those are my macro's as well.

I have yet to say to anyone to not go low carb. All I've stated is that it's not for everyone and that proper research needs to be done before someone adopts it. Here is an article that talks more about hormones. Again, it's not against the idea. In fact, this article is actually for it if it's done properly.

And I think what we're saying is that we agree people should educate themselves and do proper research, but it's not clear how a biased article that focuses only on cons, overstating them in places and even misrepresenting them in others, without any mention of the pros of a low carb diet is helpful to such an education. If the goal is education, people should look at both the pros and the cons, as well as their own personal preferences (e.g., can you give up cereal, pasta, etc.) before making a decision. When others chime in by dredging up old myths that don't even make a lot of sense (e.g., your body will burn all your muscle for energy without carbs), now we're simply miseducating people about low carb diets.

I'm not saying everyone should do low carb, and in fact I suspect for most people it's a bad fit (read unsustainable). Even for people that want to do a low carb diet, I still think it's important to count calories and watch macros daily. But I simply see no benefit in misrepresenting the information we have in an attempt to dissuade people from even considering such a diet in the first place.

I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

The fact that the blog didn't play devil's advocate with itself by presenting data that counters its own supported claims doesn't mean it misrepresented anything. It just means you don't agree with it.

I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

Let's see, the article conclusively states that low carb diets are probably not beneficial, while neglecting to actually talk about the benefits of a low carb diet. By that logic, I could make the case for anything not being beneficial by only focusing on its negative attributes and ignoring all of the positives. Probably my biggest problem with the article is that the author cherry picks a handful of studies and makes broad conclusions based on single studies, while a proper analysis of low carb diets would focus on the totality of studies and research. Now, one could conclude that it's possible they did not mention any benefits because there are none, but when there are papers such as http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf that cover numerous benefits attributable to low carb diets, it seems a bit odd that the author of the OP's article couldn't find a single benefit to low carb diets.

It also conclusively states you will feel like crap on a low carb diet, which to me suggests a clear bias given that such a statement is a) completely subjective and b) definitely not true for everyone. The article further refers to a single study when discussing muscle loss (and anytime an article has a single citation for a broad conclusion should set off alarm bells) and concludes that a low carb diet "means slower muscle growth — or even muscle loss", while ignoring the vast number of studies that conclude low carb diets are actually protective of lean body mass.

That alone I would attribute to misinformation, as I'm not aware of a single study that suggests carb intake in and of itself is a leading factor in lean body mass retention. I mean, seriously, consider this quote from the blog/article:

When you get enough carbs to meet your needs, you replenish muscle glycogen and create an anabolic (building-up) hormonal environment. You get strong and buff. That’s good.

So eating carbs will make you strong and buff, while eating a low carb diet will lead to muscle loss? That's literally what the article says, but who know it was really that simple. Not a good training regimen combined with proper protein intake, getting plenty of rest and eating a caloric surplus for muscle growth... instead, it's simply a matter of eating carbs that's the deciding factor in getting strong? It's a preposterous conclusion that simply is not supported by any research, at least that I'm aware of.

I could go on, but in short I feel that the article's conclusions are poorly supported by the totality of research and there's an obvious bias to the article.

I'm assuming you eat a lower carb diet than most or are you on a keto program?

For me personally, I'm eating a pretty low carb macro right now because I'm seeing good results and I don't have a reason to change my routine. I feel good, I'm still increasing my strength on all my lifts and weight has been coming off nicely, so my thinking is why try to fix what isn't broken. I suspect that I will eventually make some alterations to my routine at some point in the future, but I'm going to wait until I have a reason to make a change before actually making a change.

I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

Let's see, the article conclusively states that low carb diets are probably not beneficial, while neglecting to actually talk about the benefits of a low carb diet. By that logic, I could make the case for anything not being beneficial by only focusing on its negative attributes and ignoring all of the positives. Probably my biggest problem with the article is that the author cherry picks a handful of studies and makes broad conclusions based on single studies, while a proper analysis of low carb diets would focus on the totality of studies and research. Now, one could conclude that it's possible they did not mention any benefits because there are none, but when there are papers such as http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf that cover numerous benefits attributable to low carb diets, it seems a bit odd that the author of the OP's article couldn't find a single benefit to low carb diets.

It also conclusively states you will feel like crap on a low carb diet, which to me suggests a clear bias given that such a statement is a) completely subjective and b) definitely not true for everyone. The article further refers to a single study when discussing muscle loss (and anytime an article has a single citation for a broad conclusion should set off alarm bells) and concludes that a low carb diet "means slower muscle growth — or even muscle loss", while ignoring the vast number of studies that conclude low carb diets are actually protective of lean body mass.

That alone I would attribute to misinformation, as I'm not aware of a single study that suggests carb intake in and of itself is a leading factor in lean body mass retention. I mean, seriously, consider this quote from the blog/article:

When you get enough carbs to meet your needs, you replenish muscle glycogen and create an anabolic (building-up) hormonal environment. You get strong and buff. That’s good.

So eating carbs will make you strong and buff, while eating a low carb diet will lead to muscle loss? That's literally what the article says, but who know it was really that simple. Not a good training regimen combined with proper protein intake, getting plenty of rest and eating a caloric surplus for muscle growth... instead, it's simply a matter of eating carbs that's the deciding factor in getting strong? It's a preposterous conclusion that simply is not supported by any research, at least that I'm aware of.

I could go on, but in short I feel that the article's conclusions are poorly supported by the totality of research and there's an obvious bias to the article.

Muscle mass and muscle fiber are two totally different things......we would need to took at studies further out to see if very low carb leads to muscle catabolism when adequate protein is consumed. Short term studies (weeks) can show loss of LBM but when we deplete glycogen stores we decrease LMB and when carbs are consumed coming off a very low carb diet glycogen is replenished adding to LBM overnight. Glycogen isn't water weight it adds mass to muscle. This is always confused people. Actual muscle fiber is a totally different kettle of fish.

I don't see any misrepresentation of the data. You may not agree with the research that was used as support, but I don't see anything disingenuous going on. What I got was:

1) Low carb doesn't provide any particular fat burning advantage.
2) In fact, it may quite possibly be a disadvantage to one's performance.
3) One might fit into the minority for which low carb is preferable for performance purposes.

I think the issue here is that you believe, I assume as a product of your own research, that going low carb has potential benefits. I don't see that the article disputes that necessarily. What it does say is that going low-carb is probably not all that beneficial for most people, and that there are some demonstrable downsides to it.

Let's see, the article conclusively states that low carb diets are probably not beneficial, while neglecting to actually talk about the benefits of a low carb diet. By that logic, I could make the case for anything not being beneficial by only focusing on its negative attributes and ignoring all of the positives. Probably my biggest problem with the article is that the author cherry picks a handful of studies and makes broad conclusions based on single studies, while a proper analysis of low carb diets would focus on the totality of studies and research. Now, one could conclude that it's possible they did not mention any benefits because there are none, but when there are papers such as http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf that cover numerous benefits attributable to low carb diets, it seems a bit odd that the author of the OP's article couldn't find a single benefit to low carb diets.

It also conclusively states you will feel like crap on a low carb diet, which to me suggests a clear bias given that such a statement is a) completely subjective and b) definitely not true for everyone. The article further refers to a single study when discussing muscle loss (and anytime an article has a single citation for a broad conclusion should set off alarm bells) and concludes that a low carb diet "means slower muscle growth — or even muscle loss", while ignoring the vast number of studies that conclude low carb diets are actually protective of lean body mass.

That alone I would attribute to misinformation, as I'm not aware of a single study that suggests carb intake in and of itself is a leading factor in lean body mass retention. I mean, seriously, consider this quote from the blog/article:

When you get enough carbs to meet your needs, you replenish muscle glycogen and create an anabolic (building-up) hormonal environment. You get strong and buff. That’s good.

So eating carbs will make you strong and buff, while eating a low carb diet will lead to muscle loss? That's literally what the article says, but who know it was really that simple. Not a good training regimen combined with proper protein intake, getting plenty of rest and eating a caloric surplus for muscle growth... instead, it's simply a matter of eating carbs that's the deciding factor in getting strong? It's a preposterous conclusion that simply is not supported by any research, at least that I'm aware of.

I could go on, but in short I feel that the article's conclusions are poorly supported by the totality of research and there's an obvious bias to the article.

I'm assuming you eat a lower carb diet than most or are you on a keto program?

For me personally, I'm eating a pretty low carb macro right now because I'm seeing good results and I don't have a reason to change my routine. I feel good, I'm still increasing my strength on all my lifts and weight has been coming off nicely, so my thinking is why try to fix what isn't broken. I suspect that I will eventually make some alterations to my routine at some point in the future, but I'm going to wait until I have a reason to make a change before actually making a change.

I'm not sure why we're talking about your intake, or anyone else specifically for that matter. I'm sure it's important to you, as it should be. Yay for your success and all that, but it doesn't really matter to me. As it happens, going low carb (below 120ish g/day for me) makes me feel awful. It really does affect my performance at the gym, but I don't expect you to care about that either. I don't really think it's important to the discussion even, except as an example of information that's irrelevant. Looking back the comments we can see people who like it and people who don't; it's kind of wash on that front.

As I said initially, there's some definite tone issues going on. I don't see the same conclusive statements that you do. I'm guessing that this because you're having such an extreme reaction to the bias. You want something that this blog post isn't trying to be at all. If you think something needs to be a comprehensive analysis of a topic and otherwise it's an attempt at deception by definition, then we just see things differently.

You can throw around terms like "cherry picked" and "poorly supported." I would go so far as to say that it's welcome....if you want to provide the information to counter it that will add to the discussion. Something at least. So far your responses can be summed up by saying "The blog's research isn't complete enough, but I'm not going to bother to add anything significant to the discussion aside from my disapproval of bias because the information is out there and shame on them for not reading my mind and predicting my objections. Afterall it's his responsibility."

It comes across both not terribly helpful and shrill.

EDIT: Looking at: http://www.nmsociety.org/docs/LowCarbDiet/Nutrition-in-Clinical-Practice-2011.pdf I fail to see much here. Mostly the benefits seem to cover either issues of satiety or the benefits of LC diets as therapy for various metabolic disorders. I don't know why anyone really bothers looking at satiety this way. I'll determine when I'm sated regardless. I see no reason for the blog to cover dietary options for people with diabetes; they're not doctors. Mostly the study seems to be about comparing LC diets to low fat diets and dunking previously held myths...but I don't see those myths in the OP blog post. In short, I don't really see the benefits they're talking about, and I would have preferred if they'd talked about the other disadvantages that can be associated with LC diets. I'm sure you can sympathize....

'm not sure why we're talking about your intake, or anyone else specifically for that matter. I'm sure it's important to you, as it should be.

Someone asked me personally about my intake and I didn't see a reason to post twice. The comment about my personal carb intake wasn't directed to you, and if you actually look at the quote I included you'll realize that isn't your quote.

So far your responses can be summed up by saying "The blog's research isn't complete enough, but I'm not going to bother to add anything significant to the discussion aside from my disapproval of bias because the information is out there and shame on them for not reading my mind and predicting my objections. Afterall it's his responsibility."

You don't have to read my mind; you could simply read the links I've posted. For that matter though, I'm pretty sure we've had quite a bit of discussion in this thread about muscle loss and low carb diets and how the original article's position that carbs make you buff and the lack of carbs causes muscle loss is nonsense. As for me not providing specific details on the other benefits of such a diet, I don't see the need to reiterate what medical researchers can explain better than I can. A simple citation is sufficient in my eyes.

My point was simply that the article's author neglected to even mention these and this is a clear sign of bias on his part. I could write an article bashing kale as an unhealthy junk food by focusing only on negative aspects of kale and the overconsumption thereof, without mentioning any of its positive aspects (I've actually seen a humorous post from someone who did precisely this). In short, it's quite easy to vilify something if you only discuss the negative aspects and misrepresent the evidence.