thoughts on low carb diets?

lemurcat12 wrote: »

It was actually supposed to be supportive of trying low carb or other similar experiments, as people seem to commonly say that no one should reduce carbs unless they plan to eat that way for life.

I've not run across people saying such apparently crazy things, but no doubt they are out there.

IMO, different carb levels may work at different times. But never mind.

I have provided one such short term event example where this is likely the case, so I agree with you in spirit at the very least.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

This is what drives me nuts about low carb evangelism. I'm totally open to the idea that people are different and lower carbs work better for some, but the nutrition science currently does not support the idea that lower carb is healthier, let alone for everyone.

I'm nuts about nuts but evangelising nothing.

I'm a proponent of lower carbs and better sources of carbs. I'm not a proponent of "low" carbs, because I can't define what low means. What's "low"? Low could probably be defined as the minimum (X) to maintain proper body function. I'm certainly not doing that for my own case nor would I promote that. What's high?

Subtract minimum carbs from 100% and then subtract the minimum fats and protein to maintain proper body function and you've got Z balance left. What factor of X-carbs to fill in that remaining balance remains healthy? 1.5 times? 2 times? 5 times? Is there any relationship?

I'd like to see what science supports high (50%? 60%?) or even moderate carbs (40%?) as being healthy in the average person over a lifetime.

The nutrition science that apparently has supported relatively high carbohydrate consumption in some modern societies over past decades seems more linked to the influence of industry and happen stance of a nation's agricultural production than actual science. SAD did not materialize because it was healthy. Eat your grains! Eat your grains!

Did science design this food pyramid (USDA 1992) or did industry influence play a role? I don't know the answer but would bet the latter.



6 to 11 servings?

syndeo wrote: »

200km a month is nothing to write home about as a runner. It is not even at a competitive (for a rec runner) level.

Given I started at being unable to run even 1km last September, I'm happy with my progression, thanks. I've been adding 20 - 40km a month the last few months, going by feel and I'll eventually get back to the volume I used to run in my twenties and thirties but I certainly won't be rushing things as injury that would sideline me is something I'm keen to avoid. My motivation is also quite a bit different now at 53 than it was then.

A lot of the studies on LCHF diets and endurance seem to use a very low V02 max.

Low VO2 Max for who? An endurance athlete? A sprinter? A 20 year old? A 50 year old? Is this even relevant to the discussion?

And are we talking about "low carb high fat" diet here? Is a 33/33/33 c/f/p diet "low carb"? 40/30/30? I guess either might be called low carb if we are to believe 1992 USDA eating guidelines. Anything under 55% carbohydrates would appear to be low in that era.

My point in linking *my* lower carb diet to *my* running is not to debate performance of elite endurance athletes on LCHF diets but to pass on that *I* am not finding I need a bump up carbs for longer runs in the way I was trained or conditioned to by past habits. I don't know, yet, if that positive experience will carry on to a three hour run or a race pace run. But I'm going to find out.

I do know that I don't need the bagel I used to consume habitually before every training run of any length.

Of course a lot has changed. I'm 23 years older than when I last ran fast and long, and I'd never been heavy and out of shape before. It's a whole new world.

mwyvr wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

This is what drives me nuts about low carb evangelism. I'm totally open to the idea that people are different and lower carbs work better for some, but the nutrition science currently does not support the idea that lower carb is healthier, let alone for everyone.

I'm nuts about nuts but evangelising nothing.

I'm a proponent of lower carbs and better sources of carbs. I'm not a proponent of "low" carbs, because I can't define what low means. What's "low"? Low could probably be defined as the minimum (X) to maintain proper body function. I'm certainly not doing that for my own case nor would I promote that. What's high?

Like I said, I think the evidence is that macro percentage doesn't matter much or at least has different effects to different people (and depending on the particular source of the carbs).

Continuing to argue about the SAD or the old pyramid isn't responsive to that.

Numerous traditional diets have carb percentages higher than the SAD (including heavier grain consumption than the current SAD, in all likelihood),* and plenty of people followed in the Nurses Study with higher carb diets do fine or even better than those with higher fat diets if you correct for source of carbs (and I'd say the same thing if someone were arguing that fat or sat fat is unhealthy, as I think the evidence there is inconclusive for the same reasons). I mentioned this before, and you ignored it and kept arguing that it's always better to have a lower carb percentage than the standard 50% or so.

However, I wasn't referring to you re the evangelism comment. Ted and I have had exchanges before.

*I happen to agree with you that the old generic pushing of grains in the pyramid was bad advice, and I am not so sold on whole grains as super healthy as some (although I'm not so skeptical about it as I used to be either, in large part due to traditional diets). I think the reason grains were the base of the pyramid, though, was primarily (a) cost; and (b) the difference in a society like ours where food is super abundant and we aren't so active and one in which getting enough calories was important. I often think about my grandfather who certainly ate more grains and other starchy carbs than I ever did (I'm actually not a carb nut, which is why I found cutting carbs an easy way to cut calories for a while), but who was never fat. He was also a farmer and quite active in his daily life, whereas I have a sedentary job. It's not surprising that my desire for carbs increases when I'm more active and have a higher TDEE also.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

plenty of people followed in the Nurses Study with higher carb diets do fine or even better than those with higher fat diets if you correct for source of carbs

A curiosity that I'm wondering about: If you don't correct for source of proteins, those consuming the lowest % of carbohydrates, highest % of proteins, also happen to be smokers in significantly higher numbers (26% vs 17%) than those consuming the highest percentage of carbs. I'd be interested in seeing smokers filtered out to see what things look like.

Back to low-carb, doesn't the conclusion of the study say it all?

CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate and higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and protein are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.

So no increased risk of CHD if adopting a low-carb diet with any mix of fats and proteins, and if choosing good fats and proteins, moderately lower risk of CHD.

Sounds good to me.

I do low carb diet, but not now, not during exam period.
One thing I notice is it's harder to concentrate.

Cutting calories works, and cutting carbs is one way to do that. Depending on the person, perhaps the best way for that particular person.

But many or most people don't feel bad at all after eating carbs, especially if they eat a reasonable amount of food in general (or balance the carbs with other foods). Like I said, I think low carb is great for those it works for, but the rhetoric about it sometimes sounds as if the benefits you experience would be experienced by everyone, and that's just not the case.

Also, everyone should lose weight eating food they perceive as delicious. I certainly have.