Why are carbs so bad?

Speaking of Martin Berkhan and his leangains site... this thread reminded me of an article he posted a while back which you can find here:

http://www.leangains.com/2009/02/low-carb-talibans.html

The discussion under that article is top notch as well.

Also it'd appear that some people in this thread are married to binary thinking - it's either carbs are good or carbs are bad. MSF is right... making such arguments is beyond silly without context. Context pertaining to the individual, the goals, the programming, etc. Here's an excellent and objective (as if true objectivity were possible) article:

http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?152

I understand that eating carbs causes the insulin response and the body easily stores this energy as fat... but I am still confused. At the end of the day, as far as fat loss is considered, isn't it all about calories in, calories out?

Let's say I eat 700 calories of cookies loaded with carbs, and then I go on a 7 mile run and burn all that energy off. When I do this, I feel like total crap.

Let's say I eat 700 calories of eggs and cashews... all protein... and then I go on a 7 mile run and burn all that energy off. When I do this, I feel awesome and have lots of energy.

Other than my energy level, what is the difference between the two above scenarios? Does one work-out really burn more fat than the other? The only difference I see (the end result) is my energy level, mood, and the likelihood that I will not binge later since what I ate was actually nutritious.

The only difference I see (the end result) is my energy level, mood, and the likelihood that I will not binge later since what I ate was actually nutritious.

BINGO!!

1) Apparently, you are the one who is unaware. I am completely aware that it is 2011, just as I know full well that the gov't is still pushing a low-fat diet. Otherwise, why is our food pyramid so focused on low fat foods? Low fat dairy, limiting eggs... it's ridiculous. As for my great-grandmother and her anecdotal evidence, consider what the population of the world was eating back then, which she was a great example of. More fat, more meat, less carbs - and they were more healthy (less diabetes, for example?). Great-grandma died of complications from Alzheimer's, not anything "fat" related!

2) I was making the same point about glucose being a non-essential nutrient. The human body not only can survive without consumed glucose, it can thrive. Any nutrient that can be produced by the body is no longer essential, which is why there are only 10 essential amino acids instead of 20. We need all 20 to live, but we only need to consume 10. The same rule applies to glucose, which we produce using gluconeogenesis. As long as people eat sufficient fat and protein, we can produce the glucose needed for body function. (And yes, I certainly realize alcohol isn't essential - but comparing it to another non-essential shouldn't be a problem!)
3) When you are getting 30% of your calories from protein, which on a 1600 calorie diet is 120 grams, you will be able to build muscle. Even high-protein diets only recommend 2.75g of protein per kilo of lean mass, which means a woman eating 30% of protein from 1600 calories who weighs 123 pounds at 22% body fat (normal amounts) will be fine. A low carb diet typically is 30/50/20, protein/fat/carbs, so why would a muscle-building diet have to be hypercaloric?
4) Yeah, well I'm talking to a group of people on a website dedicated to weight loss. Most people, if not all, who are trying to lose weight have some insulin resistance. Unfortunately for you, this forest is more of the kind of people I am talking to than you.
5) Sources: Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (mentioned by many others, for the idea that nutrient intake is more important than calories in, calories out). I don't have time to post all of the things I have read that give me sources, but the two places I suggest to start with are Mark's Daily Apple (http://www.maeksdailyapple.com) and Leangains (http://www.leangains.com/). Leangains mostly talks about restricting food intake through intermittent fasting, but he does discuss (and his comments discuss) low carb diets.

1) I don't know the government's recomendation off hand, but I am sure I would disagree with them. You still haven't provided a case as to why we should follow your great-grandmother's diet simply because of her age of death. Maybe your family just has good genetics in the presense of an unhealthy livestyle? Also, I was talking more so about the media. It's much more about low carb nowadays.

2) I'm aware our bodies are capable of surving on low carb diets. However, what is the sustainability over time? And, just because some individuals respond positively to this type of diet, does that mean it should be implemented on a larger scale?

3) First, macro ratios should be a by-product of calculating one's daily grams for each macro, not the other way around. As you have said, protein can be turned into glucose through gluconeogenesis. Regulating the body's upkeep takes presedense over building muslce. That's not to say it is impossible to build muslce on a hypocaloric diet, but it is extremely difficult if you have been lifting weight for more than let's say a year. If anything, they simply become more efficient.

4) I would argue that the majority of weight loss people on this website are <200 lbs and not diabetic with a lack of insulin resistance/sensitivity.

5) See my signature. I've used information from his articles to provide counter points to your arguements.

Speaking of Martin Berkhan and his leangains site... this thread reminded me of an article he posted a while back which you can find here:

http://www.leangains.com/2009/02/low-carb-talibans.html

The discussion under that article is top notch as well.

Also it'd appear that some people in this thread are married to binary thinking - it's either carbs are good or carbs are bad. MSF is right... making such arguments is beyond silly without context. Context pertaining to the individual, the goals, the programming, etc. Here's an excellent and objective (as if true objectivity were possible) article:

http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?152

Excellent post! Thanks for clearing that up!

I understand that eating carbs causes the insulin response and the body easily stores this energy as fat... but I am still confused. At the end of the day, as far as fat loss is considered, isn't it all about calories in, calories out?

Let's say I eat 700 calories of cookies loaded with carbs, and then I go on a 7 mile run and burn all that energy off. When I do this, I feel like total crap.

Let's say I eat 700 calories of eggs and cashews... all protein... and then I go on a 7 mile run and burn all that energy off. When I do this, I feel awesome and have lots of energy.

Other than my energy level, what is the difference between the two above scenarios? Does one work-out really burn more fat than the other? The only difference I see (the end result) is my energy level, mood, and the likelihood that I will not binge later since what I ate was actually nutritious.

The 700 carb scenario is a craving afterwords. A recovery drink will make it disappear very quickly.

The 700 protein scenario. Protein was converted to glycogen and possibly some muscle loss. No sugar crash. Strength training will recover any lost muscle.

No, that fat burn is nearly the same in simplistic terms. There is supposedly a way to make your body rely a bit more on fat and it's touched on in Paleo For Athletes.

Yes, a calorie deficit prompts fat AND muscle loss. With added strength training and over the course of time you can drop fat and add muscle with a calorie deficit. But, insulin response is in the NOW time frame. Nowhere to store it, it goes to fat. Then you must unlock that fat to be used as energy. Hence, too many carbs = fat storage = need to unlock it = bust out some chronic cardio. This creates stress. Stress response is cortisol which is not your friend, not healthy and a fat storage response.

What you do drives the nutrition you need. You can eat a boat load of carb calories, work hard to burn them, and add stress and the results of cortisol. You'll probably age quicker than a drunk or drug addict. Or, you can manage your insulin response, work less hard, and reduce the stress and cortisol response.

I like this comparison that is based on my weight, age, and max heart rate. I can either fuel insanely intense 45-60 minute cardio workouts every day and burn 5lbs of fat in 100 days while invoking a fight or flight response to the stress of it and suffer the consequences. OR, I can manage my insulin response, strength train once in 7-10 days(I'm considered advanced and need more recovery time), use slow cardio = the kind you can still have a conversation during, breathe in nose and out mouth instead of gasping for air(about 55-75% of max heart rate), create a suitable calorie deficit, not invoke a cortisol response, and drop the same amount of fat in 35 - 70 days depending on the deficit. Over this time, beginner or intermediate strength trainees will drop fat and add some muscle.

5) See my signature. I've used information from his articles to provide counter points to your arguements.

I was mostly referring to his comments on his articles, and the posts he refers to on other websites (I was at work and couldn't take much more time on it) that support my side. But that's okay. I've decided that I'm not going to get any more sucked into this argument, since I am easily dragged into internet drama (not a reference to you, btw) and I'm trying to avoid it for Lent this year.
To finish my thoughts on this: I don't think that all carbs are bad, but I truly believe that weight loss is more than just a thermodynamic equation and that a person who gets too large of an insulin response will have problems with weight loss, resistant or no. I have my research that backs that up, but you will obviously work on what you know. And as far as I know, isn't the Leangains eating plan pretty low carb? Or am I confusing it with something else?

but I truly believe that weight loss is more than just a thermodynamic equation

And this is really the crux of things in my opinion. Anyone saying that building a better body and better health is solely about calories is very misguided. Obviously a calorie deficit comprising nothing but gum drops and jujubes isn't going to promote leanness and health as well as a diet comprising lean meats, abundant veggies and fruits, a balance of saturated, mono and polyunsaturated fats, etc.

At the end of the day though, I think you'd be hard pressed to show me sufficient peer-reviewed academic research that shows people losing weight in a calorie surplus or gaining weight in a calorie deficit, assuming we're talking about tissue weight and non-diseased people. But who cares about that since we're not here solely for weight loss. People, knowingly or not, are more interested in health and body composition.

And this latter focus requires calorie control AND nutrient control. One without the other is a pointless proposition. Anyone who's arguing that there aren't nutrient needs that need to be accounted for independently of calorie intake is sorely mistaken.

The people claiming that "all calories aren't the same" aren't grasping the specifics. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... just as a meter is a meter. A calorie is merely a unit of measurement. You're confusing nutrients with calories... they aren't interchangeable. Nutrients provide our bodies energy that, for the time being, we quantify with an outdated metric known as the atwater system and calories. Yes, nutrients are not created equal in the "body's eye" which should be obvious to anyone. But that's not the same as saying, "all calories are not equal."

When you delve into the research pertaining to nutrient manipulation, if there are any clear trends, it's that there is no One Way that's right for everyone. People who espouse high carb diets to everyone are misguided just as people who espouse low carb diets to everyone are misguided. Individually tailoring a diet to the individual in question is a must if lasting change is going to be realized.

We've data out there supporting the idea that low carbohydrate approaches are better for some while higher carbohydrate approaches are better for others, further exemplifying why any blanket recommendations are sort of silly. Anyone who works with a wide array of folks in the fat loss setting can vouch that a myriad of diets work depending on the person and the situation. I can say this... in my experience, lower carb approaches tend to work best for my obese clients and by and large, moderate carb approaches tend to work best for my leaner clients. This most likely has something to do with insulin resistance/sensitivity issues which has already been mentioned in this thread.

And if you're truly trying to show that there is some sort of metabolic advantage for anyone eating low carb, you need to wait for sufficient research to be conducted comparing low vs. moderate or high carb approaches THAT MATCH protein and calories. The research simply isn't there yet though. James Krieger, an author and published researcher whom I highly respect and communicate with, put it perfectly when he said:

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.

Mind you, his published paper on MA actually supports the MA hypothesis.

and that a person who gets too large of an insulin response will have problems with weight loss, resistant or no.

Yea, it's true that having elevated insulin levels blocks fat oxidation and lipolysis on a meal by meal basis. But what happens if, say, you eat one huge meal and spike insulin to the moon, store fat, shut off lipolysis, etc. and then don't eat again for the rest of the day?

If that one meal was only 1,000 calories and you need 2,500 a day to cover your total daily energy expenditure, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?

And this doesn't even begin to factor in things like rate of digestion... eating even a high-carb diet does not necessarily imply chronically elevated insulin. And low carb zealots (not suggesting you're a zealot) tend to look at things in a vacuum... insulin promotes fat storage, carbs spike insulin, therefore carbs make us fat. They leave out, as already mentioned, the myriad factors that also play a role in fat metabolism such as acylation stimulation protein, catecholamines, HSL, etc.

As I noted above, in the game of weight loss it is about thermodynamics before anything else. In the game of body composition and health, it's much more complex however.

For anyone interested in learning more about insulin and its relation to lipogenesis, I can't recommend Jame Krieger's series on it which you can find here:

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

That's part 1 and you can continue on to the other parts from it.

Well said stroutman81...

and that a person who gets too large of an insulin response will have problems with weight loss, resistant or no.

Yea, it's true that having elevated insulin levels blocks fat oxidation and lipolysis on a meal by meal basis. But what happens if, say, you eat one huge meal and spike insulin to the moon, store fat, shut off lipolysis, etc. and then don't eat again for the rest of the day?

If that one meal was only 1,000 calories and you need 2,500 a day to cover your total daily energy expenditure, why exactly is the body just going to hang on to those calories when it needs them to survive?

And this doesn't even begin to factor in things like rate of digestion... eating even a high-carb diet does not necessarily imply chronically elevated insulin. And low carb zealots (not suggesting you're a zealot) tend to look at things in a vacuum... insulin promotes fat storage, carbs spike insulin, therefore carbs make us fat. They leave out, as already mentioned, the myriad factors that also play a role in fat metabolism such as acylation stimulation protein, catecholamines, HSL, etc.

As I noted above, in the game of weight loss it is about thermodynamics before anything else. In the game of body composition and health, it's much more complex however.

For anyone interested in learning more about insulin and its relation to lipogenesis, I can't recommend Jame Krieger's series on it which you can find here:

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

That's part 1 and you can continue on to the other parts from it.

I don't have much time to respond to this, but I did want to say 2 things before I forget:
Thanks for not assuming I'm a zealot (I'd like to think I'm not)
And two - my quote above probably should have said "and that a person who gets too large of an insulin response will have problems with weight loss, resistant or no, especially if it stays high most of the day." I'm a big fan of IF, (like the leangains method already mentioned). I also completely acknoweldge that some people have higher insulin response to certain foods than others, which is why I make the comment in reference to insulin and not carbs.... if your body doesn't react strongly to carbs, you won't have a high amount of insulin and eating carbs won't be a problem. Everyone needs to find their own way. For me, eating low carb is more about trying to teach my body how to react to carbs again (I'm insulin resistent in relation to PCOS) but that won't be the case for everyone.

Again, to add to the others, nice post.